I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CT - 0 0 4 2 7 - S CT T IM O T H Y G EN E P R Y ER a /k /a T IM a /k /a TI M OTHY PRYER a

/ k / a TI M OTHY G. PRY

ER 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 : 01/ 30/ 2012 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . T H O M A S J. G A R D N E R , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: I TAW AM BA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: TI M OTH Y G ENE PRY ER ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: J OHN R. HENRY, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 05/ 2014 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. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T i m othy Pryerr epea t edl y r eques t ed document s f r om the C i r cui tC l erk of I t aw amba C ounty pur s uantt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi Publ i c R ecor ds A ct . T he ci r cui tj udge tw i ce de ni ed the r eques t , f

i ndi ng thatthe document s di d notexi s tw i thi n the cl erk’ s f i l e. Pr yerappea l ed the lat ter ord er a n d the C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed , w h ere u p o n w e g ran ted a w ri t of cert i orari . W e a f f i r m.

### Th ou ghit is un clear p recisely wh at P ryer was seekin g, he requ ested “C ourt Ord ers” 1 

### and “ nam es that we redockete d Dec em ber 2, 2004. ” Se em ingly, hewant s a copy of the circ uit court’ s c ri minaldocke t, a long with the nam es and a ddre ss es of de fe ndant s arrai gned onthe same d ay as h e. Carol Gate s i s, and wa s in 2004, the Cl er k of the Circ uit

Court of I tawam

ba County. 2 

### Secretaryof S tate, 2004-2008 Off ic ial and Statis tical

Regi ster , Mississip

pi (BlueBook

) 289 (20 05 ). Honora

blePaulS. Funde rbur

k is , and was in 2004, one of the circuit court j udges 3 

### servin g Itaw amba C ounty . Secretaryof S tate, 2004-2008 Of ficial and St

ati stic al Re gis te r , Missi ss ippi (BlueBook

) 19 4 (2 00 5). 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . Pr yersoughtfr om t he c i r c ui tc ou r t : “ the O r de rgi vi n[ g] Car ol G a t e s the O f f i ce of J udge de f

act o orpr o t empore and the or der gi vi n[ g] C ar ol G at es author i ty t o appoi nt in d ig e n t co u n se l fo r D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 4 [he a rin g ] a n d the n a m e s o f th e 4 0 p lu s s o u ls a n d th e ir addr es s es acc or di ng t o the r ecor d. ” T he I t aw amba C ounty C i r cui tC our ti s s ued an or deron 1 J une 6, 2011, “denyi ng Pr yerr ecor ds and cons trui ng a r eques tf orr ecor ds as a pet i t i on f or P o s t - Co n v i c t i o n Re l i e f ( P CR) . ” ( E m phas i s i n or i gi nal . ) T hi s orde rdoes notappea ri n t he rec o rd b u t i s m en ti o n ed in the “M o ti o n to S h o w C au se” fi led b y P rye r on Jun e 2 0 , 20 1 1 . In thatm ot i on, Pr yeral l eged: thaton D ece m ber2, 2004 A . D . , C ar ol G at es pr es i ded overan I ndi ctm ent 2 A r r ai gnm e nt as Judge de fact o o r pro t em pore in the ab sen ce o f Paul F und erburk . T hatf

or ty (40) pl us s oul s w er e arr ai gned and thatC ar ol G at es 3 a p p o in te d in d ig e n t c o u n s e l b y th e n a m e o f H o n . C ar ol yn Bens on t o r epr es ent som e or al l of the forty (40) pl us soul s. B ecause C arol G at es i s not lice n se d to practi ce l aw , C arol yn B enson recei ved S t at e funds u nd er f al se pret enses, F u n d erb u rk a n d G ates f aci l i t at ed the cr i m e and a r e ac ces s or i es bef or e the

### This may be a ref er enc e to Honora

bleThomas J. Gardner , II I, Senior Circui t Cour

t 4 

### Jud ge fo r Itawamb a Co unty. S ecretary o f State, 2004-2008 Of ficial and St

ati stic al Re gis te r , Missi ss ippi (BlueBook

) 19 4 (2 00 5). 3 f a c t . Bec a us e G at es and Judge G arner [sic ] ha v e o b v io u sly c o n sp ire d to 4 ci r cumventthe l aw and pr ocedur e, they ar e acce s s ori es af t er t he f act . ( E m phas es i n or i gi nal . ) A s s ert i ng that“[ t ] he truth w i l l com e out , ” Pryerr eques t ed the above d o c u m e n ts fr o m th e c ir c u it ju d g e . ¶ 3 . O n D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 , P ry e r filed a p e tit io n fo r w ri t o f m a n d a m u s in th is C o u rt, re q u e s tin g th a t w e d ir e c t th e c ir c u it ju d g e to e n te r a n o rd e r o n th e “ M o tio n to S h o w C a u s e .” T h is C o u rt g ra n ted th e p e tit io n f o r w ri t o f m a n d a m u s o n Ja n u a ry 1 8 , 2 0 1 1 , an d th e c irc u it courtpr ocee ded t o ent eran or deron February 1, 2012. T hator derd enied Prye r ’ s m ot i on, expl ai ni ng thatt he docum ent s r eques t ed w er e “notcont ai ned w i th the C i r cui tC l erk’ s f i l e” and that“[ t ] hi s m ot i on c ont ai ns the exac ts ame r eques t s a s the pr evi ous l y f i l ed mot i ons . ” The courtcont i nued, “the M ot i on t o Show C aus e cont ai ns compl et el y unf ounded and s l ander ous a lle g a tio n s a g a in s t s e v e ra l c o u rt o ff ic ia ls .” ¶ 4 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e Ita w a m b a C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, hol di ng that“w e h ave no re as on t o bel i eve thatany s uch document s do exi s t . I tf ur ther a p p e a rs th a t P ry e r is m e re ly o n a ‘fish in g e x p e d iti o n ’ fo r g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich to a ttac k h is convi ct i on and s ent ence . ” P ry e r v . S ta te , 2013 W L 2399645, a t*2 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. J une 4, 2 0 1 3 ). In h is pe ti ti o n for w ri t of cert i orari , P ry e r a rg u e s th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls e rre d in tw o w ays . F i r s t , P r yerar gues t hatt he ci r cui tcourtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o tr eathi s r eques tas a p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief, s in c e h e e x p licitly re q u e ste d th e d o c u m e n ts p u rsu a n t to

### 4

th e P u b lic R e c o rd s A c t. S e c o n d , P ry e r c o n ten d s th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls e rro n e o u sly exce pt ed pr i s oner s f

r om the Publ i c R ecor ds A ct . H e r eas s ert s that“the C i r cui tC our tJ udges o f I taw am b a C o u n ty . . . [are] sign ing g en eric o rde rs an d all o w ing clerk s to o ffi c iate a rr [ a ] i g n me n t s . . . . T h e p r a c t i c e i s u n l a wf u l a n d P ry e rn e e d s p u b l i c r e c o r d s t o p r o v e i t . ” He concl udes that“[ t ] hi s i s the m ai n r eas on the l egi s l atur e enac t ed the Publ i c R ecor ds A ct ” and that he “prays thi s H on orabl [ e] C ou rtw i l l sett l e thi s qu est i on so as t o k eep the ri gh tt o acce ss publ i c r ecor ds t o al l hum ans as per s ons . ” A N A L Y S IS ¶ 5 . T h e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n v e sts th e c irc u it c o u rts a n d th e c h a n c e ry c o u rts o f th is St at e w i th thei rj ur i s di ct i on. “The ci r cui tc our ts hal l have or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on i n a llm att ers ci vil and cri m i nal i n thi s st at e no tvest ed by this C on st i tuti on i n som e ot her court. . . . ” M i ss. C o n st. a rt . 6 , § 1 5 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). Th e Co n s t i tu t i o n f u r th e rp r o v i d e s th a t : “ [ t ] h e S u p r e me C our ts hal l have s uch j urisdi ct i on a s p ro p erly bel on gs t o a cou rt of appea l

s a n d sh a ll exer ci s e no j ur i s di ct i on on m att er s otherthan thos e s peci f i cal l y pr ovi ded by thi s C ons t i tut i on orby gener al l aw . ” M i s s . C ons t . art . 6, § 146 ( emphasi s a dded) . The l egi s l atur e has s poken to the m ea n ing o f “a p p e ll ate jurisdicti o n ”: “A n ap p ea l m ay b e tak en to the S u p rem e C o u rt f r om a ny fin a l ju d

g m e n t o f a c ir cu ito r ch an ce ry c o u rt . . . . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -51 -3 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). F u rt h e r, [t] h e e ss e n tial c riter io n o f a p p e llate ju risd ictio n is th a t it re v ise s a n d c o rre c ts the pr ocee di ngs of

a ca us e al r eady i ns t i tut ed, and does notcr eat e thatcaus e. I n r ef er ence t o j udi ci al tr i bunal s , an appe l l at e jur i s di ct i on, ther ef or e, nece s s ar i l y i m pl i es t hatthe s ubj ect - m att erhas been al ready i ns t i tut ed i n and

### 5

act ed upon b y som e othercourt , w hos e j udgm entorpr ocee di ngs ar e t o be r evi s ed. I l linois Cent

. R . Co. v. D odd , 1 0 5 M iss. 2 3 , 4 3 , 6 1 S o . 7 4 3 , 7 4 3 -44 (19 1 3 ). ¶6 . T h e circu itc o u rt d e n ied b o th P ry e r’s first re q u e st fo r d o c u m e n ts a n d P rye r’s s ubs equentand s uccessi ve “M ot i on t o Show C aus e. ” The ci r cui tcourt ’ s or deron the “M ot i on t o Show C aus e” s t at es t hat“[ t ] hi s m ot i on cont ai ns t he exacts ame r eques t s as t he p rev iou sly fil ed m o ti o n s, ” th a t th e d o cu m en ts “are n o t con tai n ed w ith the C ir cu itC lerk’s f i l e, ” and thatPr yer ’ s al l egat i ons agai ns tcourtof f i ci al s ar e “unf

ounded and s l ander ous . ” The C our tof A ppeal s t erm ed Pryer ’ s r eques ta “f i s hi ng expedi t i on. ” P ry e r v. S ta te , 2 0 1 3 WL 2399645, at*5 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 4, 2013) . T he I t aw amba C ounty C i r cui tC our t ’ s rul i ng on Pryer ’ s “ M ot i on t o Show Cause ” w as a f i nal j udgm ent . Pryer ’ s a ppeal fr om t hat f i nal j udgm entw as appea l abl e t o t hi s C our tunderi t s const i tut i onal appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on and a s s ig n a b le b y th is C o u rt to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls . ¶7. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Publ i c R ecor ds A ct s t at es : “[ a] ny per s on deni ed the r i ght gr ant ed by S ec ti o n 2 5 -61 -5 to insp ec t or co p y p u b li c re co rds m ay insti tute a su itin th e c h an ce ry c o u rt of the county i n w hi ch the publ i c body i s l ocat ed, and the courts hal l det erm i ne w hethers uch publ i c r ecor d i s exem ptfr om t he pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt er. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 61- 13( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2010) . T he s t atut e pr ovi des pa r t i es aggr i eved by the deni al of publ i c r ecor ds the opt i on of

f i l i ng s ui ti n the cha ncery courtas a mean s of seeki ng r el i ef . T he C our tof A ppeal s neverst at ed orsugges t ed t hatpri s oner s ar e out s i de t he sc ope of the Publ i c R ecor ds A ct. If Pry er so d esires, he m ay , p u rsua n t t o the s tatu te, insti tute a su itin the C h an ce ry C o u rt

### If

, insteado f s ee king c ircui t c ourt re cords, Prye r ha d sought re cords f

rom the 5 

### It awamba County Chance ry Cour t, we woul d havebee n le ft to ponde r the s tatut e’ s func ti onal it

y. Ac cording t o thest at

ute , ha d Prye r be en de nie d re cords bytheIt awamba County Chance ry Cour

t, one option f

or Pr yer would have be en instit

uti on of a sui t in that verysame chan cery co urt. 6 o f Ita w a m b a C o u n ty . N o th in g in th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e c isio n o r in th e o rd e r o f th e c irc u it 5
co u rtp rev en ts his d o ing so , a n d this C o u rt ’s ru li n g tod ay d o es n o t i m p ed e P rye r’s st atuto ry ri g h t to fi le s u c h a n a c tio n , s h o u ld h e c h o o s e to d o s o . ¶8. I ns t ead of

ut i l i zi ng the s t atut ory pr ocedur e f orde ni al of

publ i c r ecor ds r eques t s , Pr yer f i l ed hi s M ot i on t o Show Cause i n c i r cui tcourt . U pon deni al of thatm ot i on, he f

i l ed a not i ce of appea l i n thi s C ou rt , and hi s cas e w as as s i gned t o the C our tof A ppeal s . Pr yernow c o m p lain s o f a ju risd ictio n a l d e fe c t. H e sta tes th a t “th e C irc u it C o u rt h a d n o ju risd ictio n to ent ert ai n a Publ i c R ecor ds requestas a Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef pet i t i on. ” W e ca nnots ay w h ethe r th e circu itco u rttrea ted P rye r’s init ial requ est as a m o ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef, s i nce thator dernei therappea r s i n the appe l l at e r ecor d norw as i tappea l ed. B uti n i t s or der on the M ot i on t o Show C aus e, t he ci r cui tcourtdi d notm ake ref erence t o the M i s s i s s i ppi U ni f or m Post - C onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef A ct . M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 99- 39- 1 t o - 29 ( R ev. 2007) . T he ci rcui tco ur ts i m pl y deni ed the mot i on and hel d thatthe document s w er e “notT he ci rcui tco urtco ntr ols it s ow n records. See U R C C C 1 . 1 2 (“N o rec o rd, or a n y p art 6 of a f i l e of courtpaper s , s hal l be t aken f r om the cl erk’ s cus t ody w i thouta w r i t t en or derf r om the j udge t o the cl erk. ”) ; M i ss. C od e A nn. § 9- 1- 29 ( R ev. 2002) ( “Each courts hal l have contr ol overal l p rocee di ngs i n the cl erk’ s of f i ce . . . . ”) . N um er ous s t atut es s etf or th the d u tie s o f th e c ir c u it c le rk w ith re g a rd to re c o rd -k e e p in g . See M iss . C o d e A n n . § § 9 -7 -1 2 7 to -18 1 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). 

### 7 cont ai ned w i th t he C i r cui tC l erk’ s f i l e. ” T hus , the r ecor d pr ovi des no i ndi cat i on thatt he 6 circu itco u rttr ea ted P rye r’s M o ti o n to S h o w C au se a s a p eti ti o n for p o st-c o n v icti o n reli ef. ¶ 9 . Th e Co u r to f

Ap p e a l s , h o we v e r , a p p l i e d th e s t a n d a r d f r o m Flem in gv. S ta te r equi r i ng p riso n e rs s e e k in g p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief to “ sh o w [] a sp e c ific n e e d , o r th a t th e d o c u m e n ts s oughtare n ecessa r y t o deci de a s peci f i c i s s ue. ” P r

yer , 2013 W L 2399645, at*2 ( ci t i ng Fle m in g v . S ta te , 55 3 So . 2d 50 5, 50 7 ( M i s s . 19 89 ) ) . W hi l e w e f i nd tha tthe Cour tof A p p e a ls in c o rre c tly a ss u m e d th a t P ry e r’s M o tio n to S h o w C a u se w a s tre a ted b y th e c irc u it courta s a pe t i t i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , w e do notf

i nd thatthe ci r cui tc our tw as w i thout ju risd ictio n to ru le u p o n th e m o tio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s tate d th a t “w e h a v e n o re a so n to b e lie v e th a t a n y su c h d o c u m e n ts d o e x is t,” a n d w e a g re e . P r yer , 2013 W L 2399645, at*2. ¶1 0. W e af

f i r m t he d e c i s i on o f

the Courto f

Appe a l s a nd tha tof

t he C i r cui tC our t of It a w a m b a C o u n ty . ¶11. AF F I RM ED . W A L L E R , C .J ., R A N D O L P H , P .J ., L A M A R , P I E R C E , A N D K I N G , J J ., CO NC UR . DI CK I NS ON , P . J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON JO I N E D B Y C H A N D L E R A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. DI CK I NS ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG :

### Mis s CodeAnn. § 25- 61-1 ( Rev. 2010) ( em phas is adde d). 7 

### 8 ¶12. I f a ne w s or gani zat i on f

i l ed a publ i c- r ecor ds r eques te xact l y l i ke the on e T i m ot hy P ry e r filed , I firm ly b e liev e the m a jo rity w o u ld b e tak in g a d iffe re n t vie w . B u t th e sim p le truth i s that , beca us e he doe s happen t o be an i nm at e, the C our tof A ppeal s – and now t he m aj ori ty o f this C ou rt– den y him the st atutory ri gh tt o fi l e a publi c-r ecords r equ est . B ecause nothi ng i n the publ i c- r ecor ds s t atut es deni es an i nm at e the s ame acce s s t o publ i c r ecor ds as a n e w s o rg a n iza tio n (o r a n y o n e e lse , fo r th a t m a tter) , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶13. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s Publ i c A ccess t o P ub l i c R ecor ds A ct of 1983 ( “Publ i c R ecor ds A ct ”) s t at es : “I ti s the pol i cy of the L egi s l atur e thatpubl i c r ecor ds m us tbe ava i l abl e f ori ns pect i on by any pe rs on unl es s otherw i se pr ovi ded by thi s A ct . ” A nd beca us e the maj or i ty nei ther 7 ci t es norpoi nt s t o any exe m pt i on o r excl us i on f ori nm at es , i ti s f

ai rt o concl ude thatt he L egis l ature i ntended the P ub l i c R ecords A ctt o ap ply t o inm at es. ¶14. So, l et us as s um e f or a m om ent that , i ns t ead of Pr yer , a new s or gani zat i on s us pect ed th a t – in the ab se n c e o f an y circ u it ju d g e –the circ u it c ler k o f Itaw a m b a C o u n ty ille g a lly pr es i ded overf

or ty ci r cui t - courtarr ai gnm ent s , t aki ng pl eas , s ett i ng tr i al dat es , and as s i gni ng couns el t o i ndi gentdef

endant s . I f

t hatnew s paperw i s hed t o engage i n a “f i s hi ng expedi t i on” to s e e if th e re w e re d o c u m e n ts in th e c irc u it co u rt files to su p p o rt th e su sp icio n , n o o n e w o u ld thi nk anythi ng abouti t . B ut , be caus e Pryeri s an i nm at e, r atherthan a ne w s or gani zat i on or or di nary ci t i zen, the maj or i ty deni es hi m the r i ghtt o m ake a r eques tundert he Publ i c R ecor ds A ct . I cannotagr ee w i th thi s uns uppor t ed j udi ci al pr ohi bi t i on.

### Pryer v. State , 2013 WL 23 99645 ( Mis s. Ct. App. June 4, 2013) ( ci ting Fleming 8 

### v. Sta te , 553 So. 2d 505, 507 ( Mis s. 1989)) . Mis s. Code Ann. § 25-61- 5 (Re v. 2010) . 9 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 99-39- 15 (Re v. 2007) . 10 

### 9 ¶ 1 5 . T h e re c a n b e n o d o u b t th a t P ry e r f iled a re q u e st fo r p u b lic d o c u m e n ts u n d e r th e P u b lic R ecor ds A ct . I n hi s re ques t , he cl ear l y setf or th thathe w as notatt empt i ng t o f i l e a pe t i t i on fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief, b u t ra th e r th a t th e M iss iss ip p i P u b lic R e c o rd s A c t en tit led h im to a c c e ss to th e d o c u m e n ts. W h e n th e c irc u it co u rt re sp o n d e d th a t th e re q u e ste d d o c u m e n ts d id n o t ex ist w ith in th e C ler k ’s f iles , P ry e r filed an a p p e a l, an d th e M iss iss ip p i C o u rt o f A p p e a ls hel d thathe w as on a “f i s hi ng expedi t i on. ” A gai n, m y vi ew i s thatthe Publ i c R ecor ds A ct 8 al l ow s “any pe r s on” t o r eques tpubl i c r ecor ds , and i thas no e xempt i on f or“f i s hi ng expedi t i ons . ” I n f

act , m ostpubl i c- r ecor ds r eques t s pr obabl y ar e f i s hi ng expedi t i ons . B ut beca us e of

Pr yer ’ s s t atus as an i nm at e, the maj or i ty thi nks he i s notent i t l ed t o m ake the re q u e st. ¶16. A t i s s ue her e i s the natur e of Pr yer ’ s r eques t and the appr opr i at e f orum f or r evi ew of the cir cuitcou rt ’s fai l ure t o p rod u ce the requ est ed d ocu m ents . P ryerrequest ed acc ess pur s uantt o the M i s s i s s i ppi Publ i c R ecor ds A ct , butthe C our tof A ppeal s i gnor ed the 9
m andat e w i thi n the Publ i c R ecor ds A ctand af f i r m ed bas ed on the s t atut ory pos t - convi ct i onrel i ef di scovery p rovi si on s. 10 R eques t s f orD ocum ent

s under t he P ubli c R ecor ds A ct

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 25-61- 2 (Re v. 2010) . 11 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 25-61- 5. 12 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 25-61- 13 (Re v. 2010) . 13 

### Id . 14 

### Id. 15 

### 10 ¶ 1 7 . S tate d a g a in f

o r c la ri ty , th e p u rp o s e o f th e M iss iss ip p i P u b lic R e c o rd s A c t is to pr ovi de e ve r y pe r s on –the r e i s n o e xc e pt i on wi thi n the s t a tut e s f ori nmat e s –w i t h br oad a c c e ss to p u b lic re c o rd s. A n y p e rso n m a y m a k e a re q u e st to a p u b lic b o d y fo r a c c e ss to 11 d o c u m e n ts in its p o ss e ss io n . H e re , P ry e r m a d e h is re q u e st to th e c irc u it co u rt. 12 ¶ 1 8 . T h e sta tu tes p ro v id e th a t, w h e re th e p u b lic b o d y – a g a in , h e re , th e c ir c u it co u rt

– deni es acces s t o t he r eques t ed document s , thatper s on m ay cha l l enge the deni al by “i ns t i tut [ i ng] a s ui ti n t he chanc ery cour tof the county i n w hi ch t he publ i c body i s l ocat ed” to c o m p e l ac c e ss . T h e c h a n c e llo r m u st th e n d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e p u b lic b o d y im p ro p e rly 13 d en ied a cc ess to the d o cu m en t i n q u e stio n . A n ind ividu al ag g ri ev ed b y the c h an ce ll o r’s 14 d e c isio n m a y th e n a p p e a l an d is s u b jec t to “ a ll th e rig h ts a n d ru les o f a p p e a l fo r o th e r su its a ri s in g in th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt .” 15 ¶19. Pr yer bel i eved that the C i r cui t C our t of I t aw amaba C ounty – cl ear l y a publ i c body – po sses sed pu bli c do cum ents that he w i shed to see, so he requ est ed acc ess t o those document s . T he ci r cui tcourtdeni ed ac ces s , t r i gger i ng P ryer ’ s r i ghtt o f i l e an act i on i n the

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 25-61- 13 (Re v. 2010) . 16 

### Id. 17 

### Id . 18 

### 11 cha ncery co urt . In ste a d , P ry e r c o m m e n c e d a n o rig in a l ac tio n in th e a p p e llate c o u rts o f th is 16 S tate to e n fo rc e h is rig h ts u n d e r th e P u b lic R e c o rd s A c t. ¶20. W hen a publ i c body – w hether the ci r cui t court , the M i s s i s s i ppi T ax C om m i s s i on, or any otherpubl i c body – deni es a re ques tm ade pur s uantt o the Publ i c R ecor ds A ct , the aggr i eved i ndi vi dual ’ s onl y r emedy i s t o i ni t i at e an or igi nalacti on in th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. N ei ther this C ou rtno r the C ou rtof A pp eal s m ay co nst i tuti on al l y h ear or i ginal ci vil act i on s. W e do nots i tas a tr i al court , and w e do notm ake fact -f i ndi ng deci s i ons . I ns t ead, as p rov ided in the P u b li c R ec o rd s A ct, an ag g ri ev ed p erso n m u st bring su itin the ch an ce ry c o u rt. 17 ¶21. Sect i on 25- 61- 13 s t at es that“[ a] ny per s on deni ed the r i ghtgr ant ed by Sect i on 25- 61- 5 t o i nspect or copy p ub l i c records m ay in stitu te a su it i n th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt o f th e c o u n ty in w h ich th e p u b li c b o d y is loca ted, an d the c o u rtsh all d eterm ine w h ethe r suc h p u b li c re co rd i s exem ptfr om t he pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt er. . . . ” T he maj or i ty s ugges t s the perm i s s i ve 18
w or d “may” l eaves open otheravenue s , and thatthe cha ncery courti s onl y one of ot her pos s i bl e unnamed ave nues t o s eek r el i ef . I f i nd the bett eri nt erpr et at i on of “may” – as us ed in the sta tu te – is th a t an a g g rie v e d p a rty “ m a y ” (h a s p e rm iss io n , b u t is n o t re q u ire d to ) file a l aw s ui tw hen suc h a deni al has occ urr ed. T he unambi guous l anguage of Sect i on 25- 61- 13

### Id. (e mpha si s a dded) . 19 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-51- 3 (Re v. 2002) . 20 

### Id. 21 

### 12 pr ovi des onl y a s i ngl e ave nue t o chal l enge deni al s undert he Publ i c R ecor ds A ct– “ in stitu te a suit i n the cha ncery co urt . . . .” 19 ¶2 2 . T h e m a

jo rity a lso p o ints o u t th at th is C o u rth as a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n o v er fin a l, app eal able or ders, bu ti tfai l s t o recog nize that the ci rcui tcourt ’s denial of Pryer ’s request 20
w as s i m pl y that : a deni al of a publ i c- r ecor ds r eques t . Pr yer ’ s r eques tt o the ci r cui tcl erk f or document s w as deni ed by the ci r cui tj udge, w ho s t at ed thatthe r ecor ds di d notexi s t . H avi ng b ee n d en ied th e re q u ested d o cu m en ts, P rye r’s o n ly rem ed y w as to fil e a ca se in the c h an ce ry c o u rt. 21 ¶23. T he tr i al j udge’ s r es pons e t o Pr yer ’ s r eques tt o t he ci r cui tcl erk f ordocument s w as not an or der . W hi l e i ti s true thatthe j udge s tyl ed the deni al as an “or der , ” he or der ed nothi ng. H e m e re ly d e n ied a re c o rd s re q u e st. I w o u ld n o t h o ld th a t d e n ia ls o f re q u e sts fo r p u b lic re c o rd s a re fin a l, ap p e a lab le o rd e rs, c a p a b le o f b e in g a p p e a led to th e S u p re m e C o u rt. S u re ly m y fri en d s in th e m ajority d o n o t m ea n to co n clud e tha t, for instan ce , w h ere a jus ti ce co u rt ju d g e d e n ies a re q u e st fo r p u b lic d o c u m e n ts, th e ju s tic e c o u rt ju d g e ’s o rd e r is a “ fin a l, appea l abl e or der ” t o the Supr eme C our t . T he f actthata j udge, ra thert han t he ci r cui tcl erk, re s p o n d e d to P ry e r’ s re q u e s t d o e s n o t tra n s fo rm th e d e n ia l in to a “ fi n a l, a p p e a la b le o rd e r.” ¶2 4 . P rye r m ad e a p u b li c-rec o rds req u est f o r pu b li c d o c u m e n ts p u rsu a n t to th e P u b lic R ecor ds A ct . H e made hi s r eques tt o the publ i c body he be l i eved w as i n pos s es s i on of t he

### Mis s. Const . art . 6, § 146; Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 9- 4-3 ( Rev. 2002). 22 

### Miss. C od e Ann. § 25- 61- 13 ( R ev. 2010) 

### . 23 

### Id . 24 

### 13 p u b lic re c o rd s. R e g a rd le ss o f th e p u b lic b o d y ’s r e a so n fo r d e n y in g th e re q u e st, th e so le re m e d y fo r th e d e n ial is to ins titu te a n o rig in a l civ il a c tio n in c h a n c e ry c o u rt, an d n e ith e r th is C o u rt n o r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s th e a u th o rity o r ju risd ic tio n to d e sig n a te th e re q u e st a “f i s hi ng expedi t i on, ” though t he r eques tvery w el l m ay be one . N eitherthis C ourt

nor t he Court of A ppeal s has s ubj ect

- m atterj uri

s di cti on to h e a r a n o rig in a l civ il a c tio n c h a llen g in gde n ia l o f a re q u e st fo r p u b lic records. ¶ 2 5 . W h ile w e a re in d e e d th e S u p re m e C o u rt, o u r ju risd ictio n is lim ited to th a t g ra n ted to us by the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on and the Legi s l atur e, and nei therhas gr ant ed us t he 22 j ur i s di c t i on t o he a ro r i gi na l c i vi l a c t i on s c ha l l e ng i ng a d e ni a l o f p ub l i c r e c or ds u nd ert he P u b lic R e c o rd s A c t. In fac t, S e c tio n 2 5 -6 1 -5 –w h ich se ts fo rth th e p ro c e d u re fo r a ll d e n ials underthe Publ i c R ecor ds A ct– s peci f i cal l y gr ant s the chance r y court– and o n ly the c h a n c e ry c o u rt – ju risd ictio n to h e a r s u its to c o m p e l a c c e ss u n d e r th e P u b lic R e c o rd s A c t. 23 ¶26. So, w hen the ci r cui t court deni ed Pr yer ’ s r eques t f or publ i c r ecor ds , hi s onl y r emedy w as t o i ni t i at e an or i gi nal a ct i on i n the C hance ry Courtof I t aw amba C ounty. I ns t ead, Pr yer 24 att empt ed t o appea l the ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of the publ i c r ecor ds , and i ns t ead of di s m i s s i ng the i m pr operappea l , w e im pr oper l y r ef err ed i tt o the C our tof A ppeal s . B ut , beca us e I

### 14

w ou l d fi nd that w e w ere w i tho ut j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear the ap peal, so w as the C ou rtof A pp eal s. I w o u ld v a c a te th e d e c isio n o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l. CH AN DL E R A ND CO L E M AN , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON .