Arkansas Supreme Court affirms dismissal of inmate’s challenge to parole-transfer denial

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 2025, affirmed a Jefferson County Circuit Court order dismissing pro se inmate Jeremy Kennedy’s petitions challenging the Arkansas Parole Board’s denial of transfer eligibility and seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment. Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood wrote for the majority: “We hold the circuit court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.”

Kennedy, who is incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction, had asked the circuit court to reinstate his transfer eligibility and to direct the Division of Correction to transfer him to a community-correction facility. The Supreme Court said Kennedy’s pleadings failed to provide the factual detail—specifically precise conviction dates and the statute versions applicable—that would be necessary to show the Parole Board acted outside its legal authority and thus to overcome sovereign immunity.

The nut graf: The court affirmed dismissal for three distinct reasons it described as dispositive: (1) sovereign-immunity limits on declaratory relief against the State; (2) insufficient factual pleading to show the Parole Board misapplied parole-transfer eligibility statutes; and (3) failure to show a clear and certain right to relief necessary for mandamus. The court also upheld the circuit court’s designation of the dismissal as a “strike” under Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-68-607.

In the opinion, the majority relied on prior decisions explaining that suits seeking declaratory relief against the State must allege ultra vires, unconstitutional, or illegal acts, and that parole-eligibility determinations generally fall within the Arkansas Division of Correction’s province. The court discussed Lenard v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 186, as an example of a case in which the court reviewed parole-eligibility statutes and concluded an agency had acted beyond its statutory authority; it said that applying Lenard requires knowing the dates of convictions so the correct statutory version can be identified.

The court said Kennedy listed multiple felony convictions in his petition (including burglary, breaking or entering, criminal mischief and theft) but did not supply the precise conviction dates and therefore failed to identify which version of Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-93-615 would control his eligibility. The court noted that § 16-93-615 has multiple effective dates relevant to different classes of convictions and that without precise dates Kennedy could not show the Parole Board misapplied statutory criteria. The majority concluded that, because Kennedy had not plausibly pleaded an APB misapplication, he had no viable claim against the Division of Correction either.

The court likewise rejected Kennedy’s petition for a writ of mandamus, stating that a petitioner seeking mandamus must show a clear and certain right to relief and the absence of another adequate remedy; the court found Kennedy had not done so.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the circuit court’s designation of the dismissal as a “strike” under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607, noting the appellees identified three prior suits by Kennedy the circuit court found met the statute’s criteria for strikes. The majority said the record on appeal did not show an abuse of discretion in that designation.

Justice Shawn A. Womack filed a dissent arguing that dismissal was required under Article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution because the State may not properly be made a defendant in its courts and that Kennedy should have pursued relief in his underlying criminal case rather than a new civil action. Womack wrote that the court, like the circuit court, lacked jurisdiction and would reverse and dismiss on that basis.

The appellees were represented by the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office; the brief lists Tim Griffin as Attorney General and Laura Purvis as Assistant Attorney General. Kennedy appeared pro se. The Supreme Court’s order resolves the appeal from the circuit court’s grant of the appellees’ motion to revoke Kennedy’s in forma pauperis status and to dismiss his pleadings; Kennedy filed a timely notice of appeal.

Background and procedural posture: The Parole Board has been recodified as the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board effective Jan. 1, 2024, by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-201(a)(1), a change the opinion notes. The court emphasized that when a petition is dismissed on a question of law, appellate review is de novo, and that its standard for a circuit court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim is abuse of discretion.

What the court did not decide: The majority did not rule on the underlying correctness of any particular statutory interpretation of parole-transfer eligibility because it concluded Kennedy had not pleaded the conviction-date facts necessary to present that question. The opinion also leaves intact the circuit court’s finding that the dismissal qualified as a strike under § 16-68-607 based on prior rulings against Kennedy.

Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood delivered the opinion for the majority. Special Justice Jim F. Andrews Jr. joined the opinion; Chief Justice Rhonda K. Baker concurred; Justice Shawn A. Womack dissented; Justice Bronni did not participate in the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the declaratory-judgment petition and the mandamus petition and its designation of the dismissal as a “strike.”