DANIEL S. FILLINGAME, APPELLANT
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, MISSISSIPPI INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, DIVISION OF MISSISSIPPI STATE FIRE ACADEMY, APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 09/30/2013.
FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. TRIAL JUDGE:
HON. JEFF WEILL SR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT.
APPELLANT: JANE E. TUCKER.
APPELLEE: JAMES T. METZ; ALAN M. PURDIE; DION JEFFERY
IRVING, P.J., ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Daniel Fillingame appeals the order denying his motion to
cite the State Fire Academy for contempt of court. Fillingame
claimed the Academy was in contempt for not following a
January 2011 court order that mandated the Academy permit him
to re-enroll. But the Academy indisputably let Fillingame
re-enroll in April 2011. So it could not be held in contempt.
Fillingame's real grievance has to do with the
certificate the Academy issued him at the end of his
training. But the court's order directing the Academy to
re-enroll him did not mandate the type of certificate he
would receive. Rather, this was a later-made administrative
decision by the Academy, for which Fillingame could not seek
circuit court review by simply filing for contempt.
Thus, we affirm the order denying Fillingame's motion for
and Procedural History
Between 2006 and 2008, Fillingame withdrew from the Academy
six times due to medical reasons. And between his fifth and
sixth withdrawal, he left an additional time after failing a
course. While the Academy usually permits a trainee to return
after a medical withdrawal and resume his training where he
left off (like it did the first five times Fillingame
withdrew), given the number of withdrawals, the Academy
refused to let Fillingame back in. So in 2009 he sued the
Academy, which is a division of the Mississippi Insurance
Department, for various torts and breach of contract.
The Hinds County Circuit Court dismissed the tort claims
based on sovereign immunity. See Miss. Code Ann.
§ 11-46-9(1)(c) (Rev. 2012) (reinstating immunity
against allegations of tortious behavior by fire personnel
that does not rise to the level of reckless disregard of
another's safety). But the court granted summary judgment
to Fillingame on his breach-of-contract claim. Because the
Academy's stated policy was to permit a trainee to return
after a medical withdrawal, the court found Fillingame had an
implied contractual right to return. In January 2011, the
court ordered the Academy to allow Fillingame to re-enroll.
The Academy did not appeal this order but instead permitted
Fillingame to return in April 2011.
Upon the completion of his training, the Academy issued him a
certificate. This certificate stated he had completed the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1001 Standard,
Levels I and II (2002 Edition). It ...