 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dutcher v. Stewart6/25/2003
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
In 2002, Robert William Dutcher filed a document entitled "Petition for Writ of Statutory Special Action" against the state; the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC); ADOC's director, Terry Stewart; and other prison officials (collectively, the state). He asserted that he was being denied meaningful access to the courts because the state did not make materials containing Arizona case law available to him or provide him adequate legal assistance. Dutcher argued that the state's actions violated the standards for the adequacy of legal resources that must be made available to inmates the Supreme Court set forth in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996).
The superior court explicitly declined to accept jurisdiction of Dutcher's special action complaint, finding that, because Dutcher had not asserted that any of the defendants had failed to exercise his or her discretion, failed to perform a duty required by law as to which he or she had no discretion, abused his or her discretion, or proceeded or threatened to proceed in excess of his or her legal authority, Dutcher had not raised a "proper question for special action relief." See Ariz. R. P. Special Actions 3, 17B A.R.S. (listing the "only questions that may be raised in a special action"). This appeal followed.
Dutcher does not challenge the superior court's determination that he did not raise any of the questions appropriate for special action relief under Rule 3. Rather, he insists that he was not required to do so because his was a statutory special action proceeding not governed by Rule 3. See Ariz. R. P. Special Actions 1(b) (when statutory special action is involved, "questions to be raised and considered are wholly unaffected" by Rule 3). As a threshold question then, we must determine the nature of Dutcher's special action complaint.
Under Rule 1(b), statutory special actions are those brought pursuant to "a statute expressly authoriz proceedings under certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition." See, e.g., A.R.S. ยง 23-951 (review of workers' compensation award is by writ of certiorari). Dutcher does not cite any statutory provisions authorizing his complaint. But, " t is well established in Arizona that, when an inmate is denied access to the courts which is embodied in the denial of access to a law library, the appropriate remedy is to seek special action relief, which encompasses the common law writ of mandamus." Knight v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 551, 553-54, 779 P.2d 1290, 1292-93 (App. 1989) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Dutcher's complaint was not a statutory special action but, rather, a non-statutory one. Therefore, the superior court did not err in treating Dutcher's complaint as a non-statutory special action.
Next, we determine whether the superior court abused its discretion in declining to take jurisdiction of Dutcher's non-statutory special action. See Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64, 22 P.3d 57 (App. 2001). The superior court found that Dutcher had not raised a proper question for special action relief under Rule 3. As noted above, Dutcher does not contest this finding. Indeed, because he insists that he did not need to raise a Rule 3 question, he effectively concedes that he did not, in fact, do so. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the superior court's decision to decline jurisdiction.
There being no trial court determination on the merits for us to review, we do not address the merits of Dutcher's claim. See Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88, 607 P.2d 965 (App. 1979). Finally, because we conclude the superio
Page 1 2 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|