Melvin Jefferson v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction , 2023 Ark. 83 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. 83SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-22-682
Opinion Delivered: May 11, 2023
MELVIN JEFFERSON
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 40CV-22-48]
HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION APPEAL DISMISSED.
APPELLEE
ROBIN F. WYNNE, Associate Justice
Melvin Jefferson appeals from the dismissal of his pro se petition for declaratory
judgment filed on April 27, 2022, in which he named as defendant Dexter Payne, the
director of the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC). Jefferson argued in the complaint
that the ADC had erroneously determined that he was ineligible for release on parole.1 On
September 8, 2022, the circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to perfect service on
Payne within 120 days of the date it was filed. Because the order from which Jefferson
appeals is not a final order, we dismiss the appeal.
1
In 2004, Jefferson pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree domestic battery and
two counts of second-degree domestic battery. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 300
months’ imprisonment. After sentencing, Jefferson was informed by the ADC that he must
serve 100 percent of his sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-
609(b)(1) (Repl. 2016). In the petition for declaratory judgment, Jefferson challenged the
ADC’s determination that the statute applied to his sentence.
This court does not have appellate jurisdiction when the order on appeal is not a
final, appealable order. McCullough v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 78. The law provides that valid
service of process is necessary to give a circuit court jurisdiction over a defendant. Nooner v.
Kelley, 2019 Ark. 80, 568 S.W.3d 766. When the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the
appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. Grant v. State, 2020 Ark. 282.
For an order to be final and appealable, it must terminate the action, end the
litigation, and conclude the parties’ rights to the matter in controversy. McCullough, 2018
Ark. 78. The order must not only decide the rights of the parties but also put the court’s
directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable part of it. Petrus v. Nature
Conservancy, 330 Ark. 722, 957 S.W.2d 688 (1997). This court will not reach the merits of
an appeal if the order appealed from is not final. Middlebrooks v. Graves, 2022 Ark. 107.
Rule 4(i)(1) (2021) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service of
process must be made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint unless the plaintiff
files a motion to extend the time. Id. The record in this matter does not reflect that Jefferson
filed a motion to extend the time. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure of
service without indicating whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice; however,
when service is not made on a defendant within 120 days of the filing of the complaint, a
circuit court must dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling those claims. Id. The
record indicates that this was the circuit court’s first dismissal of Jefferson’s complaint. A
plaintiff whose case has been dismissed for the first time and prejudice is not declared may
2
refile those claims; therefore, the order appealed is not a final, appealable order. See Nooner,
2019 Ark. 80, 568 S.W.3d 766.
Jefferson contends in his brief that he did, in fact, serve Payne with the complaint,
but the record does not support his contention. He included in his brief a copy of a postal
return receipt that shows the attorney general as the addressee and is dated August 4, 2022.
He asserts that the receipt establishes timely proof of service on the attorney general of
Arkansas and, thus, service on Payne. This document does not appear in the record, but in
any event, it would not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4 because the attorney general is not
an agent for service of process on the ADC and other state agencies. Middlebrooks, 2022 Ark.
107. Rule 4 requires service of process on the individual officers and employees of a
government entity that has been named in a civil action. Id. (citing Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(17)
(2021)); see also Taylor v. Zanone Props., 342 Ark. 465, 30 S.W.3d 74 (2000) (noting that the
attorney general’s office is a separate constitutional office, not merely an arm of the executive
branch, and is not an agent for service of process for state agencies).
Appeal dismissed.
Melvin Jefferson, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3