Opinion
10-102
Opinion Delivered March 18, 2010
Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus [Circuit Court of Crittenden County, CV 2009-640], Petition Moot as to Named, Respondent.
On October 5, 2009, petitioner Willie Wells III filed a civil complaint in Crittenden County Circuit Court. On February 2, 2010, petitioner filed in this court a pro se petition seeking a writ of mandamus and alleging that the Honorable David N. Laser had failed to act in a timely manner in regard to rulings and scheduling in the matter. Petitioner asks that this court order Judge Laser to provide rulings. In particular, petitioner would have the judge grant a request for an arrest warrant, grant the relief requested in petitioner's complaint, and schedule a court date.
Judge Laser first filed as a response to the petition a copy of an order that had been filed in circuit court. The order denied relief as to one of the pleadings mentioned in the petition and transferred the case for scheduling to another judge. The attorney general later filed a response on behalf of Judge Laser that referenced the same order and asserted that the petition for the writ was moot.
Petitioner may not seek to compel any particular ruling through mandamus. The writ will not lie to control or review matters of discretion. Ark. Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 20 S.W.3d 301 (2000). As to the broader relief petitioner seeks through the writ, to simply compel a final disposition of the matter, Judge Laser is no longer the proper party to provide that relief.
Although the order did not fully dispose of the litigation pending in circuit court, because the matter has been transferred to another judge for final resolution, the matter is moot as to Judge Laser. Mandamus runs to a particular judge rather than a court. State v. Vittitow, 358 Ark. 98, 186 S.W.3d 237 (2004) (citing Hogrobrooks v. Routon, 321 Ark. 654, 906 S.W.2d 687 (1995) (per curiam)).
Petition moot as to named respondent.