Opinion ID: 1153120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jurisdiction of this Court and Standing of Petitioner

Text: This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition pursuant to both Miss. Sup.Ct.R. 21 and Miss. Code Ann. § 9-1-19 (1972 and Supp. 1993). See also State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss. 1981). McMillin's standing to file a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition pursuant to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 21 is less clear. Rule 21 contemplates that the party filing a petition for Writ of Prohibition in this Court was a party below in the trial court: All parties below other than the petitioner shall also be deemed respondents for all purposes. Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 21(b). The comment to Rule 21 states that a party must seek relief in the trial court before obtaining the extraordinary relief of a remedial writ from the Supreme Court. However, Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 2(c) allows this Court to suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a particular case for good cause shown. Although McMillin was not a party to the original Hinds County action below and did not seek relief in the Hinds County trial court prior to filing his Petition with this Court, he has shown good cause for this Court to suspend those requirements of Rule 21: The Petitioner was not a party to the action in the Hinds Chancery Court. Petitioner obtained some advance warning that such an action might be imminent, and his counsel contacted Judge Dillard on Sunday afternoon, May 22nd, to inquire about the matter and express an interest in being heard. Counsel was informed at that time (Sunday afternoon) nothing had been filed. The preliminary injunction issued the next morning at 11:25 a.m. without any notice to Petitioner. The Petitioner has no adequate remedy through the ordinary processes of the Chancery Court of Hinds County to obtain any redress. In order to be heard, MRCP 24 would require a motion to intervene, notice to all parties, and a hearing, before Petitioner could even become a party to the action entitled to move to dissolve the injunction. Because of the evident time constraints imposed by the election calendar, this action under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is the only means available to Petitioner to obtain relief in the State judicial system. Petitioner's Brief in Support of Petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition. Moreover, this good cause shown is in keeping with the original equitable principle behind the issuance of a writ of prohibition: that there is no wrong without a remedy. Maples, 402 So.2d at 353. Additional good cause was shown by McMillin when he directed this Court's attention to the Lee County action where he was an intervenor, which, in direct conflict with the Hinds County action, did not result in a stay of the judicial primaries. This Court takes judicial notice of the contradictory actions of the Hinds and Lee County Chancery Courts regarding judicial primary elections and further notes the public importance of the matter. This Court has original jurisdiction to grant a writ of prohibition. Pursuant to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 2(c), and for good cause shown, this Court suspends those provisions of Rule 21 which would otherwise prevent McMillin from having the proper standing to petition this Court for a writ of prohibition.