From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Delay v. Precythe

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jun 26, 2018
550 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

WD 81190

06-26-2018

Dallas R. DELAY, Appellant, v. Anne PRECYTHE, et al., Respondents.

Dallas R. Delay, Mineral Point, MO, Appellant, pro se. Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Brook D. McCarrick, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondents.


Dallas R. Delay, Mineral Point, MO, Appellant, pro se.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Brook D. McCarrick, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondents.

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

Order

Per Curiam:

Dallas Delay appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Declaratory Judgment, challenging the validity of an offender disciplinary rule, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Delay also appeals the dismissal of four related motions. He argues that the motion court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) he alleged an actual, justiciable controversy involving the disciplinary rule and (2) the Missouri Department of Corrections failed to follow formal rule-making procedures when adopting the rule. Delay also argues that the court erred in denying his request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum and three motions for subpoenas duces tecum related to his petition. Finding that dismissal of Delay’s petition and related motions was appropriate, we affirm the motion court’s rulings. Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Delay v. Precythe

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jun 26, 2018
550 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)
Case details for

Delay v. Precythe

Case Details

Full title:Dallas R. DELAY, Appellant, v. Anne PRECYTHE, et al., Respondents.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: Jun 26, 2018

Citations

550 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)