Opinion ID: 6110000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Independent grounds

Text: The State asserts that this court should summarily affirm the circuit court's dismissal because Ward challenged fewer than all of the circuit court's independent grounds for dismissal of his complaint. Specifically, the State contends that the circuit court's ruling-that the State was entitled to statutory immunity and that Ward failed to exhaust his administrative remedies-are independent grounds for dismissal of Ward's complaint. This court has stated that when the circuit court bases its decision on two or more independent grounds and appellant challenges fewer than all of the grounds, the appellate court will affirm without addressing either. Coleman v. Regions Bank , 364 Ark. 59 , 64, 216 S.W.3d 569 , 573 (2005) (citing Pugh v. State , 351 Ark. 5 , 89 S.W.3d 909 (2002) ; Pearrow v. Feagin , 300 Ark. 274 , 778 S.W.2d 941 (1989) ). Here, Ward alleged constitutional claims and civil-rights violations in his complaint. In its motion to dismiss, the State asserts that [t]he civil-rights allegations are flawed for a number of ... reasons. As defenses to those civil-rights allegations, the State asserted (1) Ward's failure to exhaust the administrative remedies that are mandatory for ADC inmates attempting to bring such claims and (2) its immunity status pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. These two grounds for the circuit court's dismissal-the exhaustion of remedies and sovereign immunity-applied only to the civil-rights allegations that Ward raised in the complaint, and Ward does not raise these two issues on appeal to this court. Accordingly, we hold that Ward's due-process and separation-of-powers arguments are properly preserved.