Fields v. Ladner , 226 So. 3d 599, 601 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Siggers v. Epps , 962 So. 2d 78, 80 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) ). "There is a rebuttable presumption [that] favors the agency's decision, and the challenging party has the burden of proving the contrary." Goul v. Miss. Dep't of Corr. , 210 So. 3d 560, 562 (¶9) (Miss.

¶ 6. At the time Roberts received his RVR and filed his motion for judicial review, he was incarcerated at Walnut Grove in Leake County. However, Roberts filed his appeal in Hinds County. MDOC asserts that Roberts filed his appeal in an improper venue and that the circuit court therefore lacked jurisdiction over his appeal. Jurisdiction constitutes a question of law, and this Court reviews questions of law de novo. Siggers v. Epps , 962 So.2d 78, 80 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).¶ 7. Mississippi Code Annotated section 47–5–807 (Rev. 2015) provides that "[a]ny offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision rendered pursuant to any administrative[-]review procedure ... may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the agency's final decision, seek judicial review of the decision."

Sobrado's violation herein extends beyond a mere violation of an administrative rule imposed by the MDOC upon defendants when incarcerated, and instead extends to an expressed condition of his suspended sentence. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47–5–801 to –807 (Rev.2011) (MDOC administrative remedies procedures); Siggers v. Epps, 962 So.2d 78, 80 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (Administrative-remedies procedures apply to inmate grievances for adverse MDOC rule-violation reports.).¶ 31. With respect to our standard of review of the trial court's denial of Sobrado's PCR motion, precedent establishes that the circuit court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits[,] and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief[.]” Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39–11(2) (Supp.2013).

On appeal, "[t]his Court cannot disturb the decision of an administrative agency, here the MDOC, unless the decision was unsupported by, substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the agency's scope or powers or violated the constitution all or statutory rights of the aggrieved party." Siggers v. Epps, 962 So.2d 78, 80 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2007) (citing Edwards v. Booker, 796 So.2d 991, 994 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2001)).

Plaintiff is mistaken. Because Plaintiff exhausted the administrative remedies available to him, Plaintiff could have appealed to a Mississippi state court for review. Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78, 80 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (after exhausting the administrative remedies available, prisoner may appeal an adverse decision to state court pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 47-5-801 to 807). Mississippi Code Annotated § 47-5-803 provides that upon exhaustion of administrative remedies, a prisoner may appeal an adverse decision to a state court, as follows:

Fisher v. Texas, 169 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 1999). There is an available procedure with the state courts for an inmate to appeal a final decision rendered by the MDOC Administrative Remedy Program. See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-807 (Rev. 2004); Lee v. Kelly, 34 So.3d 1203, 1205 (Miss.Ct.App. 2010) (inmate appealed MDOC's denial of administrative remedy regarding earned time credit); Siggers v. Epps, 962 So.2d 78, 80-81 (Miss.Ct.App. 2005) (jurisdiction proper over appeal of MDOC administrative remedy affirming rule violation report). In addition, the Court notes that the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act provides an avenue for an inmate to challenge his incarceration based on a claim that "his sentence has expired; his probation, parole or conditional release unlawfully revoked; or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody."

42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). While Section 1997e does require inmates to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint under Section 1983, Sections 47-5-801 through 47-5-807 of the Mississippi Code do not require an inmate to file a Section 1983 complaint within thirty days of an ARP decision. Rather, the time limitation set forth in these sections of the Mississippi Code applies to an appeal of a final ARP decision to a state court. See, e.g., Goul v. Waller, No. 5:05cv55-DCB-JCS, 2006 WL 2130418, at * 2 (S.D. Miss. July 27, 2006) (noting that while plaintiff exhausted his claim that he was wrongly convicted of an RVR, he could have further pursued the matter in state court as provided by Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-807); Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78, 80 (Miss.Ct.App. 2007) (stating that Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-807 "requires that a prisoner exhaust administrative remedies before a state court may entertain the prisoner's grievance or complaint"); Craft v. State, 766 So. 2d 92, 96 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000) (stating that an inmate who is dissatisfied with the final decision of the administrative review agency may appeal such decision to the circuit court within thirty days of the decision pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-807). Here, Plaintiff is not appealing the MDOC's decision on his ARP grievance; rather, he is bringing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged constitutional violations by Defendants.

Many of the facts for these previous charges and parole violations have been discussed more fully in our previous opinions. Siggers v. Epps, 962 So.2d 78 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007); Siggers v. State, 342 So.3d 1213 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022); Siggers v. State, 352 So.3d 667 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022), cert. denied Siggers v. State, 354 So.3d 308 (Miss. 2023). On March 22, 2023, the wife later signed another affidavit recanting the February 17 and 24 affidavits, stating, "Reno Renelli Siggers did not assault me on February 17, 2021 or February 24, 2021."

¶17. Section 47-5-803(2) provides that "[n]o state court shall entertain an offender's grievance or complaint which falls under the purview of the administrative review procedure unless and until such offender shall have exhausted the remedies as provided in such procedure." Accord Siggers v. Epps, 962 So.2d 78, 80 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (recognizing that an inmate must exhaust available administrative remedies before appealing an adverse decision to state court). In this regard, "[p]ro se parties should be held to the same rules of procedure and substantive law as represented parties."

We should affirm this case on the merits only because, as the circuit judge held, Clark presented insufficient evidence to reverse the warden's ruling, and he does not show how the decision was "unsupported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the agency's scope or powers or violated [his] constitutional or statutory rights[.]" Siggers v. Epps, 962 So.2d 78, 80 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). MCDONALD, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART.