Jay Boler v. Christopher Epps
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-01011-COA
JAY BOLER
APPELLANT
v.
CHRISTOPHER P. EPPS, ET. AL.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
4/30/2004
HON. RICHARD A. SMITH
SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAY BOLER (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DENIED PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
AFFIRMED - 07/19/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND CHANDLER, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On September 9, 2003, Jay Boler, an inmate at the Mississippi Department of Corrections
(MDOC) at Parchman, was issued a rules violation report (RVR) for the unauthorized possession of
contraband, specifically canteen items. Boler was found guilty of the violation on October 17, 2003. Boler
then appealed the decision through the MDOC’s Administrative Remedies Program (ARP) by filing a First
Step Response Form. Boler’s appeal was denied and he filed a Second Step Response Form on
December 27, 2003. On January 13, 2004, Boler received notice that his Second Step Response was
also denied. Boler subsequently filed a Third Step Response Form, which was ultimately denied in a letter
dated February 3, 2004, because Boler failed to submit his request for Third Step Review within the five
day time frame allowed by MDOC policy. We note that Boler claims he gave his request to an officer for
mailing on January 18, 2004; however, there is no evidence or documentation included in the record to
support this statement.
¶2.
Boler then filed a petition for order to show cause in the Sunflower County Circuit Court. On
March 31, 2004, the trial judge denied Boler’s petition, finding that Boler had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as required by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 47-5-807. The trial judge also
found that, regardless of whether Boler exhausted his administrative remedies, Boler was not entitled to
relief as prisoner classification is not subject to judicial review. Boler then filed a motion for relief pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b), asking the trial judge to rule on the issue of whether the dismissal
of his ARP as untimely was beyond his control, resulting from the new ARP mailing system. The trial judge,
on April 30, 2004, denied Boler’s motion as frivolous.
¶3.
Boler now appeals to this Court asserting three issues which can more clearly be stated as the
following: whether the trial judge erred in dismissing his Rule 60(b) motion without determining if MDOC’s
procedure concerning the mailing of ARP appeals is unconstitutional.
DISCUSSION
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DISMISSING BOLER’S RULE 60(B)
MOTION WITHOUT DETERMINING IF MDOC’S PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE
MAILING OF ARP APPEALS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
¶4.
Boler’s chief argument on appeal is that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Rule 60(b) motion
without considering whether MDOC’s ARP mailing procedure is unconstitutional. Boler filed a Rule 60(b)
2
motion citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
Regardless of the rule cited, Boler merely argues that the trial judge’s order was “incomplete,” failing to
specify any legitimate reason to justify relief under Rule 60(b). We are disinclined to find error on the part
of the trial judge in this case; thus, we affirm.
¶5.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SUNFLOWER COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
