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

Heading: Preservation of Ward's Arguments

Text: The State presents two preservation arguments to this court as the basis for affirmance. First, the State argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Ward's due-process argument because the  circuit court did not specifically rule on the constitutionality of section 16-90-506 when it dismissed his complaint. Second, the State asserts this court should not consider the merits of Ward's arguments because he challenged fewer than all grounds on appeal.
The relevant facts are as follows. Ward filed his complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in which he raised inter alia his due-process and separation-of-powers claims. The State filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support alleging that pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Ward's due-process and separation-of-powers claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court stated in its order that it had considered Ward's motion for preliminary injunction, complaint, and amended complaint, the defendants' motion to dismiss and response to motion for preliminary injunction, examination of exhibits, and review of the applicable law in making its rulings. The circuit court also considered the parties' briefs in which the due-process and separation-of-powers arguments were discussed. In its order, the circuit court ruled that it dismissed Ward's complaint on the basis that defendants have sovereign and statutory immunity, plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which the court can grant relief. We have repeatedly stated that the failure to obtain a ruling on an issue at the trial court level, including a constitutional issue, precludes review on appeal. Jackson v. State , 334 Ark. 406 , 412, 976 S.W.2d 370 , 373 (1998). However, in this case, the circuit court ruled that Ward has failed to state a claim for which the court can grant relief. This ruling goes to the due-process and separation-of-powers claims that Ward raised in his complaint and amended complaint. Thus, we conclude that the constitutional issues are preserved for our appellate review.
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.