Williams v. Sundstrom

• Decision Date: 21 December 2016
• Docket Number: S-16-0096
• Parties: Bruce B. WILLIAMS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Laura L. SUNDSTROM, as Campbell County Coroner, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

385 P.3d 789

2016 WY 122

Bruce B. WILLIAMS, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Laura L. SUNDSTROM, as Campbell County Coroner, Appellee (Defendant).

S-16-0096

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 21, 2016

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Carol Seeger, Deputy Campbell County Attorney, Gillette, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, and KAUTZ, JJ., and BLUEMEL, D.J.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Appellant Bruce B. Williams filed a public records request with Campbell County Coroner Laura L. Sundstrom (hereinafter "the coroner"), seeking disclosure of the verdict and case docket she prepared after examining the body of a woman shot by law enforcement. Mr. Williams was dissatisfied with the document he received in response to his request and filed a "Motion for Reasonable Response" with the district court. He requested that the court order the coroner to produce a case docket "of sufficient detail" so he could "evaluate the performance of the government, including the coroner." The district court dismissed the action pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(c), and Mr. Williams appealed.

[¶2] This case has a number of procedural anomalies. We have determined that Mr. Williams was actually requesting relief in mandamus, and, even though he failed to follow the pleading requirements, the district court had jurisdiction over the action. On the merits, we conclude that, although the district court incorrectly denominated its decision as a dismissal under Rule 12(c) rather than a summary judgment, its decision was correct because the coroner produced all of the information required by statute.

[¶3] We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶4] The issues in this case are:

1. Did Mr. Williams invoke the jurisdiction of the district court by filing his "Motion for Reasonable Response"?

2. Did the coroner have a clear duty to provide the level of detail in the verdict and case docket requested by Mr. Williams?

FACTS

[¶5] Nikki Jo Burtsfield died in a law enforcement shooting on May 20, 2015. The coroner examined the body the next day and prepared the verdict and case docket on July 11, 2015. She listed the manner of death as homicide and the cause of death as:

Exsanguination

due to multiple gunshot wounds to the torso. A gunshot wound to the anterior abdomen. Perforations of the small intestinal loops and mesenteries. Perforation of the right internal iliac artery and vein. Massive intrabdominal hemorrhage. A gunshot wound to the anterior right lower chest. Perforations of the right hemidiaphragm, right lobe of liver, transverse colon, duodenum and upper posterior right musculocutaneous tissues.

[¶6] On August 14, 2015, Mr. Williams filed a public records request with the coroner, seeking the verdict and case docket. The coroner was out of town, and the official verdict and case docket was locked in her file cabinet. Two deputy coroners created a new verdict and case docket with "the information for Mr. Williams [they] believed could be released on a verdict and docket form pursuant to Wyoming state statute." The deputies' verdict and case docket listed the manner of death as homicide and the cause of death as "2 gunshot wounds

to torso."

[¶7] Mr. Williams did not believe the deputies' report complied with the law and filed a pro se document entitled "Motion for Reasonable Response" in the district court. The clerk of court labeled the action as "Simple Civil—Writ of Mandamus" apparently because Mr. Williams identified the action as such in the civil cover sheet filed with the district court. Mr. Williams stated that he represented an online periodical and the verdict and case docket, which simply listed the cause of death as two gunshot wounds

to the torso, was insufficient to allow him to "evaluate the performance of the government, including the coroner." He attached several verdicts and case dockets he had received from the Natrona County Coroner, which he indicated were examples of proper verdicts and case dockets. Mr. Williams requested "that the court order that the county coroner produce a docket of sufficient detail [so] that I can evaluate the performance of the government, including the coroner."

[¶8] The Campbell County Attorney's office appeared on behalf of the coroner and filed a "Motion to Dismiss and In the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment." The county attorney asserted the action should be dismissed because the coroner's verdict and case docket complied with the statutory requirements by identifying the cause and manner of death and no further detail was required. In the alternative, the county attorney requested that summary judgment be granted in the coroner's favor based upon the affidavits of the coroner and deputy coroner and the corresponding documents attached to the motion. One of those documents was the coroner's actual verdict and case docket which, as noted above, provided more detail on the cause of death than the deputies' response had. Mr. Williams replied that the coroner's true verdict and case docket still was not sufficient.

[¶9] The district court held a hearing and dismissed Mr. Williams' action pursuant to Rule 12(c), concluding that the county coroner's actual verdict and case docket provided in response to Mr. Williams' pleading met the statutory requirements. Mr. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal and appears before us pro se .

DISCUSSION

1. Did the district court have jurisdiction over Mr. Williams' "Motion for Reasonable Response"?

[¶10] We must first determine whether Mr. Williams properly invoked the jurisdiction of the district court with his "Motion for Reasonable Response." The issue of whether jurisdiction exists " ‘may be asserted at any time by any interested party or sua sponte by the court at the trial or appellate level.’ " City of Casper v. Holloway , 2015 WY 93, ¶ 16, 354 P.3d 65, 70 (Wyo. 2015), quoting In re AGS , 2014 WY 143, ¶ 15, 337 P.3d 470, 476 (Wyo. 2014). Jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo . Golden v. Guion, 2016 WY 54, ¶ 11, 375 P.3d 719, 722 (Wyo. 2016).

[¶11] Mr. Williams requested the district court order the coroner to provide a more detailed verdict and case docket. He did not provide any statutory authority for his action; however, Mr. Williams' request that the court order a county official to perform a certain task falls under the definition of mandamus in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–30–101 (LexisNexis 2015) : "Mandamus is a writ issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board or person commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station."

[¶12] The fact that Mr. Williams did not caption his action as a mandamus is not fatal to his claim. "In determining whether a writ of mandamus should issue, courts generally are not limited by the denomination of the relator's pleadings. If a pleading, by its allegations and the relief requested, discloses an action in mandamus, it will be so treated." 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 408 (2016) (footnotes omitted).

[¶13] We consider, then, whether Mr. Williams' pleading followed the requirements for an action in mandamus. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–30–103 (LexisNexis 2015) provides that "[t]he application for a writ [of mandamus] must be by petition, in the name of the state, on the relation of the party applying and verified by affidavit." Mr. Williams did not file a petition for writ of mandamus in the name of the state, on relation of the party applying, or verify it by affidavit.¹

[¶14] We have not located a Wyoming case addressing whether errors in pleading a mandamus action deprive the court of jurisdiction. However, Ohio has exactly the same pleading requirements and its supreme court recently addressed the consequences of not following them in Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks, 145 Ohio St.3d 408, 49 N.E.3d 1296, 1300 (2016). The court held that the statutory requirements are not jurisdictional, and a petitioner may be allowed to amend his claim to comply with the pleading requirements. Id. at 1300–01 ; see generally , Williams v. Stafford, 589 P.2d 322 (Wyo. 1979) (abrogated on other grounds by Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149 (Wyo. 1998) ) (converting a petition for writ of prohibition to a writ of mandamus without indicating that the requirements for pleading mandamus were satisfied). Under this rationale, the district court potentially could have dismissed Mr. Williams' action because he failed to follow the formal pleading requirements. However, since Mr. Williams may have been allowed to amend his claim to meet the requirements and the district court resolved this action on the merits, we will, in the interests of finality and judicial economy, address whether Mr. Williams was entitled to the relief he requested.

2. Did the coroner have a clear duty to provide the level of detail in the verdict and case docket requested by Mr. Williams?

[¶15] The district court ruled that the relevant statutes did not require the coroner to provide the information requested by Mr. Williams and dismissed his claim. Our standard of review depends upon the type of order issued by the district court. Although typically it is not difficult to determine the type of order appealed, in this case it is not so clear. The coroner filed a motion to dismiss under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment under W.R.C.P. 56. The district court granted a judgment on the pleadings under W.R.C.P. 12(c).²

[¶16] Motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) are based only upon the pleadings. However, when the district court considers affidavits, a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings automatically converts to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Rule 12(b) and (c) ; Ridgerunner, LLC v. Meisinger, 2013 WY 31, ¶ 7, 297 P.3d 110, 113 (Wyo. 2013) ; Inman v. Boykin, 2014 WY 94, ¶¶ 14–15, 330 P.3d 275, 280 (Wyo. 2014). Although the district...