Opinion ID: 1761033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the Writ Standard.

Text: Since this is not a no jurisdiction-type of writ action, we must determine whether the DOC lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. [62] It is unclear what further proceedings remain to be conducted in the Pulaski Circuit Court. But if left undisturbed until appeal, the Pulaski Circuit Court's erroneous interpretation of the retroactivity of HB 406 will have caused many prisoners and parolees to remain improperly under the DOC's supervision, resulting in expenditure of scarce state funds. [63] Since those expended and yet to be expended state funds cannot be recouped and the improperly detained prisoners or parolees cannot regain lost freedom from incarceration or supervision, we conclude that the DOC does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. Next, we then must determine whether the DOC has shown that either it will suffer an irreparable injury absent the writ or that the failure to issue the writ would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. [64] As stated before, allowing the Pulaski Circuit Court's erroneous permanent injunction to stand would result in the continued incarceration or supervision of prisoners or parolees, which would, in turn, cause the expenditure of scarce state funds to house or supervise those prisoners or parolees. There would be no mechanism for the DOC to recoup those expenses if it prevailed later on a direct appeal. So we conclude that the DOC has shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury unless a writ issues. Furthermore, we deem it to be a substantial miscarriage of justice for prisoners or parolees to continue to be incarcerated or supervised in a manner contrary to the intent of the General Assembly, as embodied in HB 406. Simply put, once a prisoner or parolee has completed his authorized sentence, justice demands that the prisoner or parolee be released from the DOC's supervision. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we conclude that a writ of prohibition should issue against the Pulaski Circuit Court in this action.