From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

L'Acquarius v. Hampton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 5, 1982
1982 OK 34 (Okla. 1982)

Opinion

No. 57739.

March 9, 1982. As Corrected April 5, 1982.

Rodney McDaniel, Jean L'Acquarius, pro se.

Don H. Hampton, Pawhuska, Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Larry Stuart, Dist. Atty., Pawhuska, pro se.


MEMORANDUM DECISION


Petitioner, inmate of the Department of Corrections, together with four other inmates, filed a singular pro se petition in the District Court of Osage County seeking ouster of various officials and employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections at the Hominy facility. Allegations were made by the inmates that the officials and employees should be removed from office because of alleged maladministration and alleged criminal conduct.

The instant original action requests this Court assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus requiring respondent District Judge to disqualify himself; requiring both the Attorney General and the District Attorney to prosecute the inmate's pro se action, or alternatively, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the ouster petition.

Proceedings to remove public officials and officers may be had only in the following manner: (1) Impeachment under the provisions of Art. VIII, § 1, Okla. Const., 51 O.S. 1971 § 51[ 51-51] et seq.; (2) Accusation for removal from office presented by a grand jury pursuant to 22 O.S. 1971 § 1181[ 22-1181] et seq., (3) In case of a county or township officer, an accusation presented by the county commissioners, 22 O.S. 1971 § 1194[ 22-1194]; and (4) Proceedings instituted by the Attorney General under the provisions of 51 O.S. 1971 § 91[ 51-91] et seq., at the direction of the Governor or upon notice in writing verified by five or more reputable citizens of the county. Inmates incarcerated in state penal institutions for convictions of felonies are not "reputable citizens of the county" within the meaning of 51 O.S. 1971 § 94[ 51-94].

Aside from Art. VII-A, Okla. Const. and 51 O.S. 1981 § 24.1[ 51-24.1], the above cited constitutional and statutory provisions are exclusive. The district court is without jurisdiction to entertain an ouster action on petition filed in the district court by private citizens. Alberty, et al. v. Parks, Dist. Judge, 128 Okla. 178, 261 P. 940 (1928).

Therefore, we refuse to assume original jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

L'Acquarius v. Hampton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 5, 1982
1982 OK 34 (Okla. 1982)
Case details for

L'Acquarius v. Hampton

Case Details

Full title:JEAN L'ACQUARIUS, PETITIONER, v. THE HONORABLE DON H. HAMPTON, DISTRICT…

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Apr 5, 1982

Citations

1982 OK 34 (Okla. 1982)
1982 OK 34

Citing Cases

Opinion No. 93-XXX

A TRUSTEE CLEARLY POSSESSES AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM LEGISLATIVE INACTMENT AND PERFORMS DUTIES IMPOSED BY LAW.…

Opinion No. 93-630

A TRUSTEE CLEARLY POSSESSES AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM LEGISLATIVE INACTMENT AND PERFORMS DUTIES IMPOSED BY LAW.…