Opinion ID: 1825916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Right to Seek a Writ of Mandamus.

Text: ¶ 13. Plaintiffs' third allegation of error is that the trial court erred in ruling it was without jurisdiction to hear their Complaint for Writ of Mandamus. This State's mandamus statute states: On the complaint of the state, by its Attorney General or a district attorney, in any matter affecting the public interest, or on the complaint of any private person who is interested, the judgment shall be issued by the circuit court, commanding any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to do or not to do an act the performance or omission of which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, where there is not a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. All procedural aspects of this action shall be governed by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-41-1 (Rev.2002) (emphasis added). This Court has articulated a four-part test to determine if a party is entitled to obtain a writ of mandamus. To obtain relief: it must affirmatively appear that four essential elements are present: (1) the petition must be brought by the officers or persons authorized to bring the suit; (2) there must appear a clear right in petitioner to the relief sought; (3) there must exist a legal duty on the part of the defendant to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (4) there must be an absence of another remedy at law. Board of Educ. of Forrest County v. Sigler, 208 So.2d 890, 892 (Miss.1968) (citing Board of Supervisors of Prentiss County v. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n, 207 Miss. 839, 42 So.2d 802 (1949)). Plaintiffs claim they meet the four requirements for obtaining a writ of mandamus and that jurisdiction of this action was proper in circuit court.
¶ 14. Plaintiffs argue they have standing to bring the instant suit, citing Hobson for the proposition that private citizens may resort to the remedy of mandamus to compel public officials and bodies to act only as to non-discretionary duties plainly required by law. Hobson, 848 So.2d at 202 (citations omitted). They note that the mandamus statute authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or any private person who is interested to bring a mandamus action. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-41-1. Plaintiffs argue that they, as private citizens seeking to have their local officials comply with non-discretionary state laws, are interested parties who have standing to seek a writ of mandamus because they do not have standing to appeal the Board's decision under Miss.Code Ann. Section 11-51-75. ¶ 15. As the Board points out, because Plaintiffs have previously taken the position that they have not suffered a separate or independent injury from the other citizens of Natchez, they do not have standing to pursue the instant mandamus action. [2] In Osborn, we dealt with a situation where a private person sought a writ of mandamus to require a public body to take an action he alleged was mandatory. We stated that a private person may petition for a writ of mandamus if he can show an interest separate from or in excess of that of the general public and that because the party seeking the writ admitted having no separate interest, he was not a proper party to seek a writ of mandamus and the circuit judge should have dismissed the action for want of standing. Osborn, 605 So.2d at 734 ( citing Fondren v. State Tax Comm'n, 350 So.2d 1329, 1332 (Miss. 1977)). ¶ 16. We find it disingenuous for the Plaintiffs to argue they were without standing to pursue a remedy on the grounds raised in Issues I & II, in an attempt to establish that a writ of mandamus was their only course of action, while asserting that they do have standing under the mandamus statute, when Osborn (which was cited in their own brief) clearly states that a private citizen must have a separate interest from the general public to seek a writ of mandamus. We, therefore, find the Plaintiffs were without standing to seek a writ of mandamus and that the trial court did not err in dismissing their complaint. Because Plaintiffs cannot meet the first requirement for seeking a writ of mandamus as articulated in Sigler, we decline to address whether they can meet the other requirements. Regardless of what other the remedies may or may not be available to Plaintiffs, it is clear they are not entitled to bring a mandamus action in the instant case.