EARL LEE WRIGHT A/K/A EARL L. WRIGHT A/K/A EARL WRIGHT, APPELLANT
RONALD KING, APPELLEE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: GREENE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED THE DECISIONS OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROGRAM AND DETERMINED THAT ITS DECISIONS WERE NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
EARL LEE WRIGHT, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR., R. STEWART SMITH JR., JAMES M. NORRIS.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
¶1. Earl Lee Wright appeals the circuit court judgment that upheld the decisions of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) Administrative Remedy Program (ARP).
¶2. In 1985, Wright was convicted for armed robbery as a habitual offender in Holmes County, Mississippi. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He is currently confined as an inmate at the South Mississippi Correctional Institute in Leakesville, Mississippi.
¶3. On March 7, 2013, Wright filed his petition for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) related to a rule violation for the possession of major contraband. The circuit court treated Wright's petition as a petition for an order to show cause pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-803 (Rev. 2011).
¶4. On May 16, 2013, Wright filed his " Application for Malicious Act: Negligence." Wright claimed that he was denied services by the Inmate Legal Assistance Program. The circuit court treated this application as a petition for an order to show cause pursuant to section 47-5-803.
¶5. On June 3, 2013, Wright filed his " Application for Permanent Restraining Order for Preliminary Injunction." Wright alleged that the bedding and clothing provided by MDOC were inadequate and that he was unable to attend religious services. The circuit court treated this as a petition falling under MDOC's ARP. The circuit court stayed the proceedings for ninety days, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-803(2), as the court determined that Wright had not exhausted his remedies under the ARP. Wright subsequently exhausted his remedies under the ARP process and filed his appeal of that decision to the circuit court.
¶6. On July 11, 2013, the circuit court entered three separate orders. The circuit court determined that the decisions of the MDOC related to Wright's ARP proceedings were not arbitrary or capricious, were supported by substantial evidence, were not beyond the powers of the ARP, and did not violate Wright's rights. It is from this decision that Wright files his pro se appeal before this Court.
¶7. The standard that this Court employs in reviewing administrative-agency decisions of the MDOC is that we will not disturb the decision of the administrative agency unless the decision is " unsupported by substantial evidence[,] arbitrary or capricious[,] beyond the agency's scope or powers[,] or violative of the constitutional or statutory rights of the aggrieved party." Edwards v. Booker, 796 So.2d 991, 994 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2001).
¶8. Wright appeals the circuit court's several decisions related to the MDOC's ARP process. The State argues that the decisions of the ARP were supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary or capricious. Also, the State argues that Wright has failed to provide a statement of issues as required by Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(3). We recognize that Wright's brief is less than clear, but our review must consider the fact that Wright has chosen to represent himself ...