Walter Henley v. Christopher Epps
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-CP-00808-COA
WALTER HENLEY
APPELLANT
v.
CHRISTOPHER EPPS AND CLARK KENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
4/17/2006
HON. W. ASHLEY HINES
SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
WALTER HENLEY (PRO SE)
JAMES M. NORRIS
JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - OTHER
PETITION TO SHOW CAUSE, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND
DISMISSED.
REVERSED AND REMANDED: 06/12/2007
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Walter Henley’s petition for an order to show cause or, in the alternative, petition for a writ
of habeas corpus was denied and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On
appeal, Henley argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and that denial of parole violated the ex post facto clause. The State
concedes error by the trial court. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶2.
On March 14, 2006, Henley filed his petition in the Circuit Court of Sunflower County,
Mississippi. The petition alleged that the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)
unlawfully denied Henley a parole eligibility date. In the petition, Henley stated that he had “fully
and completely exhausted his administrative remedies in this matter by filing his complaint in the
MDOC Administrative Remedy Program in accord with MDOC Policy and Procedures and the laws
and statutes of the State of Mississippi.” This was not accurate. Attached to the petition, Henley
provided an undated and unsworn “request for administrative remedy.” To this Court, Henley stated
that he mailed the request for administrative remedy to the MDOC Administrative Remedy Program,
but it was never acknowledged nor returned to him.
¶3.
The trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because Henley failed to
present sufficient evidence that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The court then denied
and dismissed the petition. It is from this order that Henley appeals.
¶4.
Henley argues that it was error for the trial court to conclude that his failure to exhaust
administrative remedies required the dismissal of his petition. Henley claims that the trial court
should have stayed the proceedings for up to ninety days to allow him to complete the exhaustion
of his administrative remedies. The State concedes this point. Indeed, by statute, Henley’s petition
should have been stayed.
¶5.
In its order, the trial court concluded that “the Petitioner has failed to present evidence that
he has exhausted his administrative remedies[.]” It did not reach the merits of the claim.
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 47-5-803(2) (Rev. 2004) states:
No state court shall entertain an offender’s grievance or complaint which falls under
the purview of the administrative review procedure unless and until such offender
shall have exhausted the remedies as provided in such procedure. If at the time the
petition is filed the administrative review process has not yet been completed, the
court shall stay the proceedings for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days to allow
for completion of the procedure and exhaustion of the remedies thereunder.
(emphasis added). The proper remedy, under these facts, was for the trial court to stay the petition
and not dismiss it. Guy v. State, 915 So. 2d 508, 510 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
2
¶6.
Henley and the State ask this Court to address the merits of the claim. We once again return
to the language of Section 47-5-803(2) which does not allow any state court, trial or appellate, to
entertain a complaint from a prisoner until he has exhausted the administrative remedies available.
Therefore, we decline to address the remaining merits of Henley’s claim.
¶7.
Finding that the dismissal was in error, we reverse and remand this case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. In accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated Section
47-5-803(2), the trial court shall stay the petition for ninety days to allow the MDOC Administrative
Remedies Program to consider and rule on Henley’s complaint.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SUNFLOWER COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, 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.
