Thomas Green v. Emmitt Sparkman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-01823-COA
THOMAS GREEN
v.
EMMITT SPARKMAN, ROBERT JOHNSON, AND BARBARA BAILEY
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEES
10/09/2001
HON. BETTY W. SANDERS
SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
JANE L. MAPP
FRANK CARLTON
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE
AFFIRMED - 11/05/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., BRIDGES, AND LEE, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1. This appeal concerns a suit brought by Thomas Green, an inmate housed at Parchman penitentiary,
against Emmitt Sparkman, Robert Johnson, and Barbara Bailey, officials at the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC). Green complains that he never received 180 days meritorious earned time for his
work in field operations from 1997-2000. Green first filed a grievance pursuant to the Administrative
Remedies Program (ARP). The ARP denied his request, and Green next filed a complaint against the
MDOC in the Sunflower County Circuit Court, asking the court to force the MDOC to award him the 180
days of earned time. Green's motion to show cause was dismissed by the court, but his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal was granted. Green argues on appeal to this Court that the lower court erred
when it refused to order MDOC to award him 180 days of meritorious earned time. Finding no merit, we
affirm.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUE
I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO ORDER MDOC TO AWARD
GREEN 180 DAYS OF MERITORIOUS EARNED TIME?
¶2. When reviewing a trial court decision either affirming or denying an administrative agency's findings and
decisions, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Brandon v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n,
768 So. 2d 341 (¶7) (Miss. 2000). The awarding of meritorious earned time is within the discretion of the
MDOC officials. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-142 (Rev. 2000). Green had no right to receive this privilege.
We find that Green did not exhaust the possibilities offered to him by the ARP. He was instructed to resolve
the matter by contacting his work supervisor, which he did not do. Further, Green received no injury
resulting from the denial of his meritorious earned time award. We find no abuse in the lower court's
dismissal of Green's complaint; thus, we affirm.
¶3. The appellee urges us to reverse the lower court's finding that Green was entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. According to Johnson v. State, 623 So. 2d 265, 266 (Miss. 1993), an indigent
inmate may appeal in forma pauperis in post-conviction relief cases. Still, certain grounds for a postconviction relief claim must be satisfied pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (Supp. 2001). Green's
claim does not fall under this statute and should not be classified as a post-conviction relief matter.
However, in a similar case concerning meritorious earned time, the Supreme Court stated that it is within the
trial court's discretion to grant indigent inmates leave to file in forma pauperis appeals. Tubwell v.
Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654 (¶8) (Miss. 2000). Even though Green's claim does not concern a postconviction relief matter, we find that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Green to
proceed in forma pauperis; thus, we find no error in the trial court's decision.
¶4. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SUNFLOWER COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT
ONLY.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
