Billy J. Fields v. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-00316-COA
BILLY J. FIELDS
APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF CLARKSDALE, MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
01/22/2008
HON. KENNETH L. THOMAS
COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DAVID NEIL MCCARTY
DEREK D. HOPSON
MELISSA SELMAN MARTIN
DREW MCLEMORE MARTIN
CURTIS D. BOSCHERT
WILLIAM HARVEY GRESHAM, JR.
CIVIL - OTHER
DISMISSED FIELDS’S APPEAL FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
REVERSED AND REMANDED - 02/09/2010
BEFORE KING, C.J., ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Billy Fields was terminated from his position as a captain with the Clarksdale Fire
Department (Department). He appealed his termination to the Clarksdale Civil Service
Commission (Commission), which affirmed the decision. From the Commission’s order,
Fields filed his notice of appeal to the Coahoma County Circuit Court. The circuit court
dismissed Fields’s appeal, finding that: (1) Fields failed to pay costs with his notice of
appeal, and (2) Fields failed to timely request assistance with compelling the Commission
to pay costs. Fields appeals and asserts the following alleged errors:
I.
Fields was denied due process because the circuit court improperly
dismissed his appeal.
II.
A mandatory dismissal with prejudice was too harsh of a ruling.
III.
The City of Clarksdale (City) unjustly received an advantage in
litigation by violating state law.
Finding that the circuit court erred in dismissing Fields’s appeal without giving him notice
of the appeal’s deficiencies and allowing him fourteen days to correct those deficiencies, we
reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
In 2007, Fields was a captain with twenty years of experience with the Department.
On March 26, 2007, the Board of Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Clarksdale
(Board) held a pre-disciplinary hearing regarding an allegation that Fields had disobeyed a
direct order from his superior, Fire Chief Mike Robinson. The Board found that Fields was
insubordinate and that he should be terminated.
¶3.
Fields timely appealed the Board’s decision to the Commission, which held a hearing
on the matter. The Commission voted to affirm Fields’s termination. The Commission
found that Chief Robinson presented Fields with a letter, which informed Fields of a
scheduled mandatory appointment for an evaluation at the mental health center. Attached
to the letter was an acknowledgment of receipt of the letter. It was clear from the letter that
refusal to attend would be a violation of a direct order. Similarly, it was clear that refusal to
sign the acknowledgment would be considered insubordination and could result in
2
termination.
¶4.
Fields refused to sign the acknowledgment, and he again refused to sign after he was
given time to reconsider. Thereafter, Assistant Chief Grayson 1 convinced Chief Robinson
to give Fields until the following morning to sign the acknowledgment. However, the next
morning, Fields again refused to sign it. Fields also failed to attend the scheduled mandatory
appointment for an evaluation at the mental health center. The Commission concluded that
Fields’s conduct constituted insubordination and was cause for his removal.
¶5.
On September 7, 2007, following the entry of the Commission’s order, Fields timely
filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court. Fields did not pay any costs at the time he filed
the notice of appeal. However, in the notice of appeal, Fields requested that the Commission
file a certified transcript with the circuit court. In a September 26, 2007, letter, counsel for
the Commission advised Fields’s counsel of the estimated costs of the transcript for the
appeal. In response, on October 18, 2007, Fields filed a motion requesting that the City pay
for the cost of the transcript. The circuit court held a hearing on the matter; the court held
that Fields waited too long to request the assistance of the court in securing a transcript,
approximately forty-two days after filing his notice of appeal. The circuit court found that
Fields’s failure to timely seek assistance from the court constituted abandonment of his
appeal, and the court dismissed his appeal with prejudice. Fields timely filed a notice of
appeal following the dismissal of his claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
1
Assistant Chief Grayson’s first name is not contained in the record.
3
¶6.
This Court has previously noted the following regarding the review of a dismissal for
failure to prosecute:
The power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is inherent in any court of law or
equity, being a means necessary to the orderly expedition of justice and the
court’s control of its own docket. That this Court will not disturb a trial
judge’s finding on appeal unless it is manifestly wrong is a doctrine too well
known to require citation.
Stuart v. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. of Miss., 799 So. 2d 886, 888 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)
(quoting Walker v. Parnell, 566 So. 2d 1213, 1216 (Miss. 1990)). The decision of whether
to grant such a motion to dismiss is within the trial court’s discretion, and we will not reverse
the decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. (citing Roebuck v. City of Aberdeen, 671
So. 2d 49, 50 (Miss. 1996)).
DISCUSSION
¶7.
Rule 5.05 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court provides as follows:
In appeals in which the appeal is solely on the record, the record from the
lower court or lower authority must be filed with the court clerk within thirty
(30) days of filing of the notice of appeal. Provided, however, in cases
involving a transcript, the court reporter or lower authority may request an
extension of time. The court, on its own motion or on application of any party,
may compel the compilation and transmission of the record of proceedings.
Failure to file the record with the court clerk or to request the assistance of the
court in compelling the same within thirty (30) days of the filing of the written
notice of appeal may be deemed an abandonment of the appeal and the court
may dismiss the same with costs to the appealing party or parties.
Fields filed his notice of appeal on September 7, and on or about September 26, he learned
of the cost of the transcript and that the Commission was under the impression that he was
responsible for the cost of the transcript. Fields then waited until October 18, to file a motion
with the circuit court requesting that the City pay for the transcript. Based on these facts, the
4
circuit court found that Fields waited forty days before he requested the assistance of the
court in compelling the Commission to file the transcript. Pursuant to Rule 5.05, the circuit
court found that this exceeded the allowable thirty days and that Fields had abandoned his
appeal. The circuit court based its decision to dismiss Fields’s appeal with prejudice wholly
on Rule 5.05.
¶8.
Fields does not argue against Rule 5.05's applications to his case. Instead, he argues
that Rule 5.05 should be complementary to Rule 2(a)(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Rule 2(a)(2) provides in part:
An appeal may be dismissed upon motion of a party or on motion of the
appropriate appellate court (i) when the court determines that there is an
obvious failure to prosecute an appeal; or (ii) when a party fails to comply
substantially with these rules. When either court, on its own motion or on
motion of a party, determines that dismissal may be warranted under this Rule
2(a)(2), the clerk of the Supreme Court shall give written notice to the party
in default, apprising the party of the nature of the deficiency. If the party in
default fails to correct the deficiency within fourteen (14) days after
notification, the appeal shall be dismissed by the clerk of the Supreme Court.
The attorney for the party in default has the burden to correct promptly any
deficiency or to see that the default is corrected by the appropriate official.
This Court has previously found that, with respect to the issue of mandatory or discretionary
dismissals, the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to appeals from an agency
decision to the circuit court. Wheeler v. Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality Permit Bd., 856 So.
2d 700, 704 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Bowling v. Madison County Bd. of
Supervisors, 724 So. 2d 431, 442 (¶51) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998)). Accordingly, Fields argues
that application of Rule 2(a)(2) to his appeal from the Commission requires that he be given
notice of the deficiency and fourteen days to correct it.
¶9.
In Van Meter v. Alford, 774 So. 2d 430, 432 (¶6) (Miss. 2000), Wallace Van Meter
5
was delinquent in filing a designation of record of his appeal from county court to circuit
court. Van Meter did not file the designation until forty-three days after filing his notice of
appeal, which was also two days after the appellee had filed a motion to dismiss. Id. at 431
(¶2). On appeal of the circuit court’s granting of the motion to dismiss, the supreme court
found that: “Rule 2(a)(2) mandates that, after a motion to dismiss has been filed, the court
clerk (the circuit clerk in this instance) officially notify an appellant of deficiencies in his
appeal and that the appellant be given fourteen (14) days therefrom to correct any
deficiencies.” Id. at 432 (¶3). The supreme court further found that Van Meter was deprived
of due process when his appeal was dismissed without having been given official notice of
the deficiencies by the circuit clerk. Id. at (¶4). Ultimately, the supreme court reversed the
circuit court’s judgment dismissing Van Meter’s appeal and remanded the case to the court.
Id.
¶10.
Under the reasoning set forth in Van Meter, we find that it was in error for the circuit
court to have dismissed Fields’s appeal. Under Rule 2(a)(2), Fields was entitled to notice
from the circuit clerk 2 of the deficiency in his appeal and fourteen days to correct any
deficiency. We do not find that this ruling conflicts with the language of Rule 5.05. The
circuit court may still dismiss an appeal for which an appellant has failed to timely provide
a record. However, as this Court and the supreme court have recognized, the Mississippi
Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to an appeal to circuit court. Mississippi Rules of
2
Rule 2(a)(2) states that the supreme court clerk is to give notice. However, in this
case, the circuit court was acting as the appellate court; therefore, the circuit clerk should
have notified Fields.
6
Appellate Procedure require that an appellant be provided notice from the clerk and fourteen
days to correct any deficiency in his appeal. Fields was not given notice by the circuit clerk,
and he was not provided fourteen days in which to have the record for his appeal filed. As
was the case in Van Meter, this lack of notice and opportunity to remedy the deficiency in
Fields’s appeal deprived him of due process.
¶11.
The judgment dismissing Fields’s case is reversed, and his case is remanded to the
circuit court with instructions that the circuit clerk issue the appropriate notice to Fields,
informing him of the deficiencies in his appeal, and that Fields be given fourteen days to
correct any such deficiencies.3
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY IS
REVERSED, AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
3
Additionally, we note that, under Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-31-71
(Rev. 2007), it was the duty of the Commission to “make, certify, and file” the transcript
with the circuit court within thirty days of an appellant’s notice of appeal. We recognize that
the circuit court found that Fields waited forty days to request the court’s assistance in
procuring the transcript, and this was the basis for the dismissal. However, it remains that
Fields’s appeal was dismissed, in part, because the Commission failed to timely carry out its
statutory duty.
7
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.