DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/2012.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN HUEY EMFINGER. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF TRIAL JUDGE DENIED; MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED; ACTIONS BY THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS TO LOSS OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS, HAIRCUTS, AND RULES VIOLATION REPORT AFFIRMED; AND OTHER INMATE COMPLAINTS DISMISSED DUE TO FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
CRAIG STEVE BENTRUP, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR., JAMES M. NORRIS.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
¶1. Craig Steven Bentrup filed five grievances with the Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Unsatisfied with the decisions, he appealed to the Rankin County Circuit Court. The circuit court found that Bentrup exhausted his administrative remedies on three claims, reviewed those claims, and affirmed the MDOC actions. The circuit court denied the other two claims because Bentrup did not exhaust all administrative remedies and dismissed them as premature. We find no error and affirm.
¶2. Bentrup is an inmate incarcerated with MDOC. His five grievances were labeled as ARP I through V. The circuit court affirmed MDOC's decisions as to ARP I, II, and V. In ARP I, Bentrup alleged that MDOC took his property. In ARP II, Bentrup alleged concerns over MDOC's haircut procedures. In ARP V, Bentrup asked that a Rule Violation Report (RVR) be expunged from his record.
¶3. The circuit court did not review MDOC's decisions as to ARP III and IV on the grounds that Bentrup had not exhausted his administrative remedies. In ARP III, Bentrup alleged discrimination. In ARP IV, Bentrup claimed that MDOC deprived him of his personal property.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4. This Court applies the same standard of review that the lower courts are bound to follow when considering a decision by a chancery or circuit court regarding an agency action, in this case the MDOC. Clay v. Epps, 19 ...