Jackson State University v. Upsilon Epsilon Chapter of Omega Psi Phi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2005-IA-02020-SCT
JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY;
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING;
RICHARD A. CROFTS,
INTERIM COMMISSIONER
v.
UPSILON EPSILON CHAPTER OF
OMEGA PSI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,
KENNETH HAIR, BASILEUS, AND
INDIVIDUALLY, AND
ANTHONY HALES, INDIVIDUALLY
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
10/12/2005
HON. WINSTON L. KIDD
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
RICKY LEE BOGGAN
ALAN M. PURDIE
THOMAS W. POWELL
CIVIL - OTHER
REVERSED AND RENDERED - 03/22/2007
BEFORE WALLER, P.J., DIAZ AND CARLSON, JJ.
WALLER, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This appeal arises from an altercation in the Jackson State University student union
wherein two students, Kenneth Hair and Anthony Hales, “tackled” a third student, Ryan
Mack, who was wielding a firearm. During the scuffle, the firearm was discharged,
wounding a fourth student, Benjamin Hart. Hair and Hales were issued disorderly conduct
citations and appeared before the JSU Student Life Disciplinary Committee. After a hearing,
they were found guilty of disorderly conduct and were suspended from attending JSU. The
fraternity to which Hair, Hales and Hart belonged, Omega Psi Phi, was also cited for
disorderly conduct under that part of the JSU student manual which provides that, if a
member of a fraternity “draws attention to the organization rather than to themselves as
individuals,” the fraternity may be found guilty of disorderly conduct. Omega Psi Phi was
found guilty of disorderly conduct because Hair, Hales and Hart, upset that Mack had spit
on the Omega Psi Phi monument, followed Mack to the student union and instigated the
altercation that resulted in the discharge of the weapon. Omega Psi Phi was suspended from
participating in any fraternity activities on the JSU campus until the spring semester of 2009.
¶2.
Hair, Hales and Omega Psi Phi appealed to the appeals committee, which affirmed.
They then filed in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County a
“Complaint and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, for a Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction, and for Other Relief.” They asked the court to prohibit “Jackson State University
and the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning from enforcing the
decision of the Student Disciplinary Committee.”
¶3.
After a hearing, the circuit court granted injunctive relief based on the appellees’
allegations of denial of due process. Specifically, the appellees alleged that they were not
allowed to cross examine the campus police officer who was present during the altercation
and who preferred the charges against them. We granted permission to Jackson State
2
University, the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, and Richard A.
Crofts, Interim Commissioner, to file this interlocutory appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶4.
The case of Smith v. The University of Mississippi, 797 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 2001) is
dispositive. Smith, who had been employed at the University (“Ole Miss”), as an engineer,
was terminated. Id. at 957. According to the process outlined in Ole Miss’s Handbook for
Faculty and Staff, Smith appealed, first to an administration official, then to the Personnel
Action Review Board (“PARB”) for a full administrative hearing. Id. After the termination
was affirmed, Smith filed suit in circuit court, alleging that no just cause existed for the
termination and that the appeal process was constitutionally insufficient. Id. Ole Miss
moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the circuit court had no jurisdiction
inasmuch as Smith failed to file the appeal according to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-51-93 and
-95 1 (Rev. 2002), i.e., by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court and posting
a bond. In response, Smith alleged that section 11-51-95 did not apply to him because his
procedural due process rights were violated. Id. at 960. We disagreed with Smith’s
argument. Pointing out that Smith sought a reversal of the PARB’s ruling, that is, he sought
reinstatement of his employment, we held that, even though Smith raised due process claims,
the circuit court did not have jurisdiction because Smith did not exhaust his administrative
1
Section 11-51-95 provides in pertinent part, as follows: “Like proceedings as
provided in Section 11-51-93 may be had to review the judgments of all tribunals inferior to
the circuit court, whether an appeal be provided by law from the judgment sought to be
reviewed or not.” We have held that hearing panels at state universities are "tribunals
inferior" pursuant to § 11-51-95. Smith v. Univ. of Miss., 797 So. 2d 956, 959 (Miss. 2001).
3
remedies. Id. at 961-62. It followed the ruling in Miss. State Pers. Bd. v. Armstrong, 454
So. 2d 912, 914-15 (Miss. 1984), where we held that “the required supersedeas bond is
jurisdictional, and the appeal is not perfected until the bond is approved by the circuit judge
and filed.” Smith, 797 So. 2d at 962. We continued:
Again, in Bertucci v. Mississippi Dep’t of Corrs., 597 So. 2d
643 (Miss. 1992), this Court required strict compliance with the
appeal provisions for a writ of certiorari by stating that “we
decline to ignore statutory requisites and accept that a brief is in
substantial compliance with § 11-51-93. We are not willing to
accept anything less than full compliance with all essentials
within the time allowed . . . .” As the University correctly points
out, Smith failed to submit a petition supported by an affidavit
and post a bond, with security, within six months of the decision
of the PARB per the requirements of § 11-51-95. Smith’s
failure to perfect his appeal under § 11-51-95 deprived the
circuit court of jurisdiction to review the University’s decision
to terminate Smith[;] therefore the court’s dismissal of Smith’s
claims was proper.
Id. (citations omitted).
¶5.
Therefore, because Omega Psi Phi, Hair and Hayes failed to strictly comply with
section 11-51-95 by failing to file a petition for writ of certiorari and to post a bond with
security, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellees’ motion for a
temporary restraining order, for a preliminary and permanent injunction, and for other relief.
CONCLUSION
¶6.
We dissolve the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction issued by the
Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County and render judgment in favor of
4
Jackson State University, Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, and
Richard A. Crofts, Interim Commissioner.
¶7.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND
RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
