Ex parte Little
| Decision Date | 07 June 2002 |
| Citation | 837 So.2d 822 |
| Parties | Ex parte Bobby W. LITTLE. (In re Bobby W. Little v. Fred Lawton III). Ex parte Bobby Little. (In re Bobby Little v. Cindy L. Lewis). Ex parte Bobby Wayne Little. (In re Bobby Wayne Little v. Ted Hooks). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bobby W. Little, pro se.
Fred Lawton III of Lawton & Associates, Anniston.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Fred F. Bell, asst. atty. gen., for Ted Hooks.
Bobby Wayne Little filed three similar petitions for the writ of mandamus, all of which involve identical legal issues. The petitions seek an order directing Judge Richard Joel Laird to vacate his orders denying Little's affidavits of substantial hardship and directing Judge Laird to recuse himself in each of the cases. Little seeks, by the filing of the affidavits in each case, to be declared indigent and to have the prepayment of court costs waived. We grant the petitions in part and deny them in part.
Little, a State prison inmate, filed three separate civil actions in the Calhoun Circuit Court. The actions were filed against Fred Lawton III, Cindy L. Lewis, and Ted Hooks, respectively. Each action was accompanied by a signed and notarized Unified Judicial System Form C-10, "Affidavit of Substantial Hardship and Order." According to Little, each affidavit noted his approximate income of $5.00 a month from gifts. Only the reverse side of the affidavit of substantial hardship forms were submitted to this Court as exhibits. The trial judge executed the order of the court portion of the form in each case; that order portion reads, in pertinent part: "IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: [box checked indicating that] Affiant is not indigent and request is DENIED." The words "Affiant is not indigent and" were stricken through. Little filed a motion to reconsider in each case; the motions were denied. He filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court in each case. This Court ordered answers and briefs in each case and consolidated the cases for the purpose of writing one opinion. Mandamus is "proper to compel a court to perform ministerial duties and to entertain jurisdiction," State v. Cannon, 369 So.2d 32, 33 (Ala.1979); it is also the proper method by which to review whether recusal is required. Ex parte Melof, 553 So.2d 554 (Ala.1989).
We have often stated the standard for issuing a writ of mandamus:
Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173, 176 (Ala. 2000).
We first address the issue of the judge's denial of Little's request for indigency status as reflected on the order included in the form. Little points out that Judge Laird not only denied his request for indigency status but also struck through the following language on the form: "Affiant is not indigent." In his response, Judge Laird acknowledges that he denied the petitioner's affidavit of substantial hardship and further denies that his action in doing so was improper. He asserts that it was within his discretion to deny the application, but he offers no reason for the denial or any explanation for striking through the words "affiant is not indigent" that appear on the order portion of the form.
Based upon the information before this Court, we conclude that Little has established a clear legal right to the order sought, that is, to have the order denying him indigency status vacated, that the respondent had a duty to perform, and that he refused to do so. Little has also demonstrated the lack of another adequate remedy, and he has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. We issue a writ of mandamus in each case directing Judge Laird to vacate his order denying Little indigency status.
Little also seeks an order directing Judge Laird to recuse himself in each case. As grounds for this request he argues that Judge Laird's denying him indigency status without citing grounds for the denial demonstrates bias against Little. Little also alleges that the status of each individual defendant serves as a basis for imputing bias or partiality on the part of the trial judge: according to the petitions, Fred Lawton III is a practicing attorney in Calhoun County; Ted Hooks is the circuit clerk of Calhoun County; and Cindy L. Lewis is apparently Little's former wife. Little also states that the sheriff of Calhoun County is a defendant, although nothing in the materials before this Court indicates that the sheriff has been named as a party. Judge Laird denies that he has done anything that should require his recusal.
Canon 3.C. of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics governs the disqualification of a judge. The pertinent portion of that rule provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cottrell v. Nat. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
...whether a person is a limited-purpose public figure with regard to the alleged defamatory statements. The three-pronged test applied in Little provides a workable means of determining whether a plaintiff in a defamation action is a limited-purpose public figure because of his role in a publ......
-
Ex parte Ted's Game Enterprises
...greatly depends upon that presumption and idea."'"'" Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595, 605 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Little, 837 So.2d 822, 825 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Ex parte Melof, 553 So.2d 554, 557 (Ala.1989), quoting in turn other cases). In the absence of actual bias, or t......
-
State v. Cantrell (Ex parte State)
...to do his or her duty when that duty is so clear that there are no two ways about it." Webber, 892 So. 2d at 871 (citing Ex parte Little, 837 So. 2d 822, 824 (Ala. 2002) ). Thus, in the absence of a stay, a trial court loses jurisdiction to modify or vacate its order after 30 days, and the ......
- Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)