I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 0 9 0 0 - S CT DENNI SDOBBS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 10/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARS HALL COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: PRO SE AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY BEN CR EE KM ORE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST CON VI CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 16/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. D enni s D obbs s ubm i tt ed var i ous f i l i ngs t o the M ar s hal l C ounty C i r cui t C ourt , w hi ch tr ea ted th ese fi li n g s as a m o ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion relief. T h e c ir cu itco u rtd en ied re li ef,
a n d D o b b s a p p e a led , as se rtin g h is m o tio n s w e re n o t po st-c o n v ictio n m o tio n s b u t ra th e r c iv il compl ai nt s underT i t l e 42 of the U ni t ed St at es C ode Sect i on 1983 (200 6). T he C ourtof A p p e a ls a ffirm e d , an d w e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri to a d d re ss th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e M a rsh a ll C ounty C i r cui tC ourthad j ur i s di ct i on t o c ons i dera mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef f i l ed by

### 2

an i nm at e se rvi ng a C l ay C ounty C i r cui tC ourts ent ence i n the M ar s hal l C ounty C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2
. O n Ju ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , D e n n is D o b b s filed h is “ P e tit io n fo r a n O rd e r to S h o w C a u se ” in th e M a rsh a ll C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. A t th e tim e , D o b b s w a s in c a rc e ra ted a t th e M a rsh a ll C o u n ty C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty fo r a c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e im p o se d b y th e C lay C o u n ty C i rcui tC ou rt . In hi s pr o s e pet i t i on, D obbs as s ert ed thathe “i s notatt acki ng the l egal i ty of hi s s e nt e nc e ” a ndtha th e “ i s h ou s e d i n- a - un hu man [ sic ] condi t i on. ” Speci f i cal l y, D obbs
ar gued thatther e w er e no ai rcondi t i oner s i ns t al l ed i n the f aci l i ty and the w i ndow s di d not open. D obbs f

i l ed an amended pe t i t i on on J ul y 26, 2006, w her ei n he f urtheras s ert ed thathe
w as housed i n “a f

i r e haza r d fa ci l i ty” i n thatthe M ar s hal l C ounty C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty does nothave f

i r e s pr i nkl ers ys t ems i n the dorm i t or i es . T he r ecor d c ont ai ns num er ous addi t i onal filing s w h ich a p p e a r u n re late d to th e m a tter p re se n tly b e fo re th is C o u rt. ¶ 3
. T h e M a rs h a ll C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r d a ted M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , w h e re in D obbs ’ s f

i l i ngs w er e tr eat ed as amot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pur s uantt o the M i s s i s s i ppi U ni f orm Post
- C onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef A ct , M i s s i s s i ppiCode A nn ot a t i onSe c t i ons 99- 39- 1 t o 99- 39- 29and the r el i ef r eques t ed w as de ni ed. M or e s peci f i cal l y, the tr i al courts t at ed, in tera lia , in it s o rde r: A f t erre vi ew i ng the document s f i l ed by the Pet i t i oneri n r el at i on t o the M ot i on forP ostC onvi ct i on R el i ef , and cons i der i ng al l m att er s i n a l i ghtm ost fav o rab le t o the P eti ti o n er, th e C o u rtis of the o p inion that the P eti ti o n er’s a ss e rtio n s a re w ith o u t m e rit.

### In the order dis mi ss ing Dobbs ’smotion f or rehe aring, the Court

of Appeal s s tate d, 1 

### inter a lia , “ Dobbs infor

me d theSupremeCourt

Clerk’ s Of

fi ce th at h e had be en rel ea se d from incarc eration, and wa s living at a homeaddres s. ThisCourt finds that thematter

Dobbs sought to rai sein the circuit

court , and in thi s Court , isnow moot , and motion f or rehe aring sho uldbe d ismissed.” In hi s petiti on for

writ of certiorari, Dobbs s tate s, “Petiti oner fi le d a § 1983 cl aim on 2 

### a Moti on to Show Ca

usePetition, bec aus e the f ac il it y he wa s hous ed at . . . had no § 1983 forms inthe L aw L ibrary .” 3 B as ed on the tr i al court ’ s deni al of any r el i ef

pur s uantt o hi s var i ous f i l i ngs , D obbs appea l ed to th is C o u rt, as se rtin g th a t h is filin g s s h o u ldn o t h a v e b e e n tre a te d a s a m o tio n fo r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef

butr atheras a “§ 1983 compl ai nton condi t i ons of conf i nement . ” W e
a ss ig n e d th is c a se to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, w h ich in d u e c o u rse a ffirm e d th e M a rsh a ll C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . D o b b s v. Sta te , 2 0 0 8 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 3 5 4 (M iss. C t. A p p . Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). D obbs f i l ed a mot i on f

orr ehea r i ng, w hi ch the C ourtof A ppeal s di s m i s s ed. D o b b s v. Sta te , 1 2008 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 688 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. N ov. 12, 2008)
. T hus , D obbs f i l ed hi s pet i t i on fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri , a n d th is C o u rtg ra n te d th e p e titio n o n J a n u a ry 2 9 , 2 0 0 9
. D o b b s v. Sta te , 2 0 0 9 M is s . L E X IS 2 8 (M is s . J a n . 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶4. D obbs as s ert s that hi s f i l i ngs s houl d have been tr eat ed as a compl ai nt f i l ed pur s uant t o 42 U ni t ed St at es C odes § 1983, chal l engi ng the condi t i ons of conf i nementr atherthan po st -convict i on rel ief fi l i ng s. See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 (2 0 0 6 ). W e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri to 2 addr es s j ur i s di ct i on overa mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on rel i ef ( PC R )
. D obbs di d nothave a convi ct i on i n M ar s hal l Count y. I ns t ead, bas ed on an e xecut i ve dec i s i on by the M i s s i s s i ppi

### 4

D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s, D o b b s w a s p lac e d in th e M a rsh a ll C o u n ty C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty to se rv e h is se n ten c e , w h ich h a d b e e n im p o se d b y th e C lay C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt a s a re su lt of ac on vi c t i on i n tha tc ou rt . Thus , the M a r s ha l l Coun ty Ci r c ui tCourtd i d no thave j uri sdi ct i on t o tr eatD ob bs’s P et i t i on foran O rdert o S ho w C ause an d o ther f i l i ng s as a
m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tat ed sec ti o n 9 9 -39 -7 states, i n p a rt:

T h e m o tio n u n d e r th is a rticle sh a ll b e fil e d as an o rig in a l civ il ac tio n in the tr i al court , exce pti n cas es i n w hi ch the pr i s oner ' s convi ct i on and se nt ence have be en appe al ed t o the s upr eme courtof M i s s i s s i ppi and ther e af f i rm ed or the appe al di s m i s s ed. W her e the convi ct i on and s ent ence have be en af f i rm ed o n a p p e a l o r th e a p p e a l h a s b e e n d ism iss e d , th e m o tio n u n d e r th is a rticle sh a ll n o t b e filed in th e trial c o u rt u n til th e m o tio n sh a ll h a v e first b e e n p re se n ted to a q u o ru m o f th e jus tice s o f th e su p re m e c o u rt o f M iss iss ip p i, co n v e n e d fo r sa id purpos e ei theri n t erm - t i m e ori n va cat i on, a nd an or dergr ant ed al l ow i ng the filing o f su c h m o tio n in th e trial c o u rt. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e re fo re , w ith res p e c t t o D o b b s’s c o n v ictio n in the C l ay C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtof si m ple assau lto n a l aw enforcem ent of fi cer and fal se p r e t e n s e s , i f

Do b b s we r e s e e k i n g p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f , h e wo u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o f i l e h i s P CR
m ot i on i n the C i r cui tC ourtof C l ay C ounty, the tr i al courti n w hi ch he w as convi ct ed, i nas m uch as hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence had notbeen appeal ed. “[ T ] he courti n w hi ch the convi ct i on w as obt ai ned has excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on of a PC R f r om thatconvi ct i on. ” G a rlo tte
v. Sta te , 9 1 5 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 3 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). Se e , e .g ., Stanley v. Turner , 846 So. 2 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 1 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (“ [j] u risd ictio n fo r su c h a p ro c e e d in g lies in th e c irc u it
c o u rt w h e re th e c o n v ictio n w a s o b tain e d ” ); McD o n a ll v. S ta te , 46 5 S o. 2d 10 77 , 10 78 (M i ss. 1985) ( j ur i s di ct i on t o hearpos t - convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef l i es i n courtl as thavi ng ju ri s d ic tio n ). See al

s o Ma rtin v. Sta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 3 5 7 , 3 5 8 -35 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ).

### 5

¶5. T he C ourt of A ppeal s f ound that “[ b] ecaus e the ci r cui tc ourttr eat ed D obbs ’ s f i l i ngs
as a mot i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , i tw as propert o deny hi s r eques t ed r el i ef , ” s i nce D obbs ’ s al l egat i ons di d “notf al l underany of

the gr ounds f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef
enumer at ed i n sec t i on 99- 39- 5( 1)
. ” D obbs , 2 0 0 8 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 3 5 4 , * 4 , ¶8
. H o w ev er, the r eas on thatD obbs ’ s pl eadi ngs , and the r el i ef re ques t ed ther ei n, di d notf al l underany of th e sta tu to ry g ro u n d s fo r re lief u n d e r se c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -5 (1 ) is th a t D o b b s w a s n o t s e e k in g to have the M ar s hal l C ounty C i r cui tC ourts etas i de hi s C l ay C ounty convi ct i on and/ ors ent ence – D obbs w as see ki ng ci vi l r edr es s f orw hathe cha r act er i zed a s i nhum ane c ondi t i ons atthe M ar s hal l C ounty C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty. ¶6. T he M i s s i s s i ppi U ni f orm Post
- C onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef A ctpr ovi des f

orthe f i l i ng of a pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef m ot i on f orthe purpos e of

att acki ng a cr i m i nal convi ct i on and/ or
s e n te n c e . See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). D o b b s e x p licitly sta ted in h is p e tit io n tha t he w a s n o t attac k in g the leg a lity o f h is se n ten c e , n o r d idh e e v e n in fe re n tially
a ttac k th e leg a lity o f h is c o n v ictio n . A s su c h , a n d du e to th e lac k o f ju risd ictio n , th e C irc u it C ourtof M ar s hal l C ounty s houl d have tr eat ed D obbs ’ s f i l i ngs as non- pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef fi l i ng s. ¶ 7 . A s n o te d , supra , the fi l i ngs w i th the C l erk of thi s C ourt r evea l that D obbs has been
r el eas ed f

r om c us t ody on hi s he r et of or e- i m pos ed C l ay C ounty Ci r cui tC ourts ent ence , and he now has a mai l i ng addr es s i n Pr ai r i e, M i s s i s s i ppi
. H ow ever , the mer e f actthatD obbs has b e e n rele a se d fro m c u sto d y d o e s n o t p o sit th is C o u rt, b a se d o n th e c o ldre c o rd b e fo re u s, to d ism iss a s m o o t D o b b s’s c laim s o f th e a lleg e d “ in h u m a n e c o n d iti o n s” a t th e M a rsh a ll C o u n ty

### 6

C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty . T h e c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e iss u e s o f p e rc e iv e d m o o tn e ss a n d , if
n e c e ss a ry , the m e rits o f D o b b s’s c iv il fil in g s a re b e tter le ft to th e trial c o u rt. CO NC L US I ON ¶8
. A s a resu lt o f the juri sd ict ion al erro r cre ated b y the M arsh all C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt ’s tre a tm e n t o f D o b b s’s filing s a s a m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n relie f, th is c a se is re m a n d e d to the C i r cui tC ourto f M ars hal l C ounty t o addr es s D obbs ’ s Pet i t i on f oran O r dert o Show C aus e, cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 9
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , GRAVE S , P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI T CH E NS AN D P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . CH AN DL E R, J . , N OT P A R T I C I P A T I N G.