Case Name: William C. MOTLEY, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. PLATTE COUNTY, Wyoming; Platte County Sheriff's Department; and Steve Keigley, Sheriff of Platte County, Wyoming, in his official capacity, Appellees (Defendants)
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 2009-12-03
Citations: 220 P.3d 518
Docket Number: No. S-08-0171
Parties: William C. MOTLEY, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. PLATTE COUNTY, Wyoming; Platte County Sheriff's Department; and Steve Keigley, Sheriff of Platte County, Wyoming, in his official capacity, Appellees (Defendants).
Judges: Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 220
Pages: 518–523

Head Matter:
2009 WY 147
William C. MOTLEY, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. PLATTE COUNTY, Wyoming; Platte County Sheriff's Department; and Steve Keigley, Sheriff of Platte County, Wyoming, in his official capacity, Appellees (Defendants).
No. S-08-0171.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Dec. 3, 2009.
Representing Appellant: H. Michael Bennett of H. Michael Bennett, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellees: Bruce A. Salz burg, Wyoming Attorney General; Thomas W. Rumpke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Richard Rideout, Law Offices of Richard Rideout, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
. This appeal was received by this Court under an improper caption. The caption on the notice of appeal, in conformance with the caption on the final order of the district court, was "William C. Motley, Plaintiff, v. Platte County, Wyoming, et al., Defendants." This Court ultimately amended the caption sua sponte to the caption above. The captioning problems could easily have been avoided had the district court's final order, and later the notice of appeal, properly identified the parties to this action. We remind judges and counsel that usage of "et al." in the caption of a final order, as done in this case, violates Rule 58(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that the "names of all parties ... be set out in the caption of all final orders, judgments and decrees."

Opinion:
GOLDEN, Justice.
[¶1] William C. Motley worked for the Platte County Sheriff's Department as a deputy sheriff, In November 2006, Motley filed a complaint against Platte County, Wyoming, the Platte County Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Steve Keigley "in his official capacity" (hereinafter "the County") alleging he was suspended and later terminated from his job without cause and without notice and opportunity for a hearing in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-8-611 (LexisNexis 2009) The district court determined that the provisions of § 18-3-611 did not apply to Motley and granted summary judgment in favor of the County. Motley seeks review of the district court's decision.
[¶2] Our resolution of this appeal is controlled by our decision in Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, 86 P.3d 863 (Wyo.2004) (Beaulieu II). In Beaulieu II, we held that the failure of the complaint in a governmental claim's action to allege compliance with both the statutory filing requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-89-113 and the constitutional signature and certification requirements of Wyo. Const. Art. 16, § 7 precludes the district court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Id., ¶ 10-15, 86 P.3d at 866-69. We have regularly upheld the strictness of that rule over the intervening years. See McCann v. City of Cody, 2009 WY 86, ¶ 7-8, 210 P.3d 1078, 1081-82 (Wyo.2009) (and cases cited therein). Stare decisis dictates adherence to the Beaulieu II rule in this case.
[¶3] In his complaint, Motley asserts only that:
Plaintiff has filed a claim with Platte County, Wyoming, pursuant to W.S. § 1-39-113(b) on 183 November 2006. No action has been taken as of the date of filing this action.
Although this provision indicates compliance with statutory requirements, the complaint does not mention the state constitution, let alone contain an averment that Motley com plied with the signature and certification requirements of Art. 16, § 7. Because Motley's complaint fails to allege the requisite constitutional compliance, under Beaulieu II the district court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McCann, ¶ 8, 210 P.3d at 1082; Gose v. City of Douglas, 2008 WY 126, ¶ 17-18, 193 P.3d 1159, 1163-64 (Wyo.2008). It follows that this Court, having no better jurisdiction than the district court, is without jurisdiction to consider Motley's appeal. McCann, ¶ 8, 210 P.3d at 1082; Wooster v. Carbon County School Dist. No. 1, 2005 WY 47, ¶ 22, 109 P.3d 893, 900 (Wyo.2005). We therefore dismiss the appeal.
. § 18-3-611 provides in pertinent part:
(a) This section applies to sworn nonproba-tionary, full-time deputies of a sheriff's department which employs at least twenty (20) sworn, full-time deputies....
(b) A deputy sheriff shall not be discharged from employment, reduced in rank or suspended without pay except for cause and after notice and opportunity for a hearing. The hearing and any appeal shall be conducted in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. The hearing shall be closed unless both the sheriff and the deputy involved agree otherwise.
(c) A deputy sheriff accused of a matter for which the sheriff may discharge him may be suspended with pay for a reasonable length of time necessary to investigate and take final action on the matter, provided the deputy shall not be discharged in any final action without the opportunity for a hearing.
. We are mindful that the parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction. However, this Court has a duty to consider jurisdictional questions whether or not they are raised by the parties. Plymale v. Donnelly, 2006 WY 3, ¶ 4, 125 P.3d 1022, 1023 (Wyo.2006); Robbins v. South Cheyenne Water & Sewage Dist., 792 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Wyo.1990).