Opinion ID: 1917511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts and proceedings in trial court

Text: ¶ 2. Little filed a complaint against the DHS on May 1, 2001, alleging that DHS held his son as a hostage. He also alleged that DHS acted under the guise of having a blanket custody order to keep my son. He demanded judgment in the amount of $250,000. Little alleged also that DHS made false claims of Little's son having various wounds on his body. The complaint made several accusations, namely: (1) that Harrison County Youth Court Judge Michael Ward had conspired with DHS to proceed in the defunct Harrison County Family Court; (2) that DHS convinced his son that he couldn't go back home; (3) that DHS conspired with Judge Ward to keep this one, meaning his son; (4) that Judge Ward unlawfully took and tried to run a magnet over audio tapes made by Little during contact with DHS when the assasins (sic) were trying to kill Little; and (5) that DHS and Judge Ward were operating a clandestine foster child ring and DHS was trying to kidnap my other kids. ¶ 3. DHS filed its answer on September 21, 2001, responding that Little had failed to properly perfect service of process; that Little had not complied with statutory formalities of administrative procedures and had not exhausted his administrative remedies; and, that Little had not perfected his right to sue under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 to -23 (2002)). The answer also avers that because the actions about which Little complained were the result of the actions of a judge, DHS is entitled to full judicial immunity. DHS also denied all allegations in the complaint. ¶ 4. On September 21, 2001, DHS filed a Rule 12(b)(6) [1] motion to dismiss which was granted by the circuit court on November 21, 2001. In the order of dismissal, the trial judge found: (1) that Little failed to allege subject matter or in personam jurisdiction, failed to allege proper venue and failed to properly allege the nature of a cognizable party defendant; (2) that none of the allegations stated claims upon which relief could be granted; (3) that DHS was immune from suit since it exercised discretionary duties; and (4) that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear Little's claims.