Willa Hynes vs. Missouri Department of Corrections

WILLA HYNES, ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) WD85329 consolidated with v. ) WD85361 ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ) OPINION FILED: April 4, 2023 CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent-Appellant. )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri Honorable Daniel Richard Green, Judge Before Division Four: Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Janet Sutton, Judge The Missouri Department of Corrections ( DOC) appeals the Cole County Circuit Court's (trial court) grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Willa Hynes ( Hynes). Hynes conditionally cross-appeals and moves to dismiss and for damages for frivolous appeal. The trial court found that the DOC wrongfully denied Hynes' access to open public records in violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law. The trial court, however, left unresolved whether DOC's violation was knowing or purposeful and did not decide issues relating to the imposition of civil penalties and the award of costs and attorney fees. At the DOC's request, the trial court entered judgment

2

under Rule 74.01(b). 1 We find that the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in Hynes' favor did not fully adjudicate a distinct judicial unit and is therefore not an appealable judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction and deny Hynes' motions. Factual and Procedural Background 2

On April 4, 2021, Hynes' son, Jahi Hynes, died while in the DOC's custody at Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri. That same day, the DOC called Hynes and informed Hynes of his passing, saying her son had "hurt himself" and that the DOC could not release further information about his death. On April 5, Hynes called the DOC's warden, asking

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations refer to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2016, as updated, and all rule citations refer to the 2021 Missouri Supreme Court Rules. Rule 74.01(b) states: When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter a judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. In the absence of such determination, any order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. 2 As Green states: The record below is reviewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered, and that party is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record. However, facts contained in affidavits or otherwise in support of the party's motion are accepted as true unless contradicted by the non-moving party's response to the summary judgment motion. Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Mo. banc 2020) (citation omitted). Since summary judgment was ordered against the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC), we review the record in the light most favorable to DOC.

3

about what happened to her son, and the warden told Hynes that "he could not tell [her] what happened because it was under investigation." On May 4, 2021, Hynes, through her attorney, requested her son's records from the DOC's records custodian under the Missouri Sunshine Law. The DOC, however, denied Hynes' request, stating her son's records were "closed." After several months of correspondence between Hynes and the DOC, including more requests from Hynes, on August 20, 2021, Hynes filed a petition for injunctive and declaratory relief against the DOC in the trial court. In her petition, Hynes asked the trial court to declare the DOC knowingly and purposefully violated the Sunshine Law under section 610.027 and to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering the DOC to produce all requested records to Hynes within ten days of the trial court's order. In a second count, Hynes requested the trial court order production of medical records in the DOC's possession. The DOC filed a motion to dismiss in September, which the trial court overruled after a hearing. With portions of the requested records not yet disclosed, Hynes filed her motion for summary judgment and a statement of uncontroverted facts in December 2021. The DOC responded to Hynes' motion for summary judgment in January 2022, and Hynes replied in February. At that point, the DOC had partially complied with Hynes' requests, providing Hynes with a copy of her son's autopsy report, his medical records, and portions of his offender records. The trial court held the summary judgment hearing in March 2022. Hynes argued for partial summary judgment, but stated that she was not seeking summary judgment "on the issue of [DOC's] knowing and purposeful violation" of the Sunshine Law. The trial court stated that it intended to rule in Hynes' favor. On the issue of the DOC's knowing and purposeful violation of the Sunshine Law, the trial court then told the DOC, "I

4

don't think the knowing deal is ripe yet for the [court]. I'm not going to make that decision because I think you guys are going to appeal it." The trial court also told the parties that "I don't think I'm going to find that [the DOC] [is] a law enforcement agency, but I'll mimic the language in the Glasgow case to say that at least as far as this case was concerned they were acting." The trial court then instructed Hynes to draft a proposed judgment to "[k] eep them guessing up there." The trial court then asked the DOC to provide the authority and proposed language to support that the judgment was appealable. On April 5, 2022, Hynes submitted her proposed judgment to the trial court and a copy to the DOC. On April 6, 2022, Hynes sent an email to the DOC advising that it could not yet appeal under Rule 74.01 because the judgment was not final under Glasgow Sch. Dist. v. Howard Cnty. Coroner. Hynes attached a copy of Glasgow to her email and asked the DOC to advise the trial court that the partial summary judgment was not yet final for appeal purposes. On April 7, 2022, the DOC then submitted its own proposed judgment, adding a section as to the judgment's appealability as directed by the trial court, but also substantially changing Hynes' proposed wording. The DOC changed the proposed judgment by removing any language saying the Sunshine Law violation alleged by Hynes was done "knowingly" and "purposely," by removing that the DOC had acted as a statutory law enforcement agency, by adding language about a protective order, by deleting that the issue of the DOC's "knowing" and purposeful" violation of chapter 610 be set for trial, and by removing the provision that the DOC provide Hynes with the records within five days of the date of the order. Most importantly, the DOC changed the final decree from "the judgment is granted in part" to "the judgment is granted." The DOC made these changes despite the trial court saying during the hearing that it would give the DOC "a chance to look at [Hynes'] judgment and change the language that keeps the

5

judgment in [Hynes'] favor or keeps her theme . . . ." (Emphasis added). On April 11, 2022, Hynes followed up with her own email to the trial court cautioning that, under Glasgow, the partial summary judgment was not final. The trial court issued its judgment in April 2022, entering judgment in Hynes' favor declaring that the DOC violated the Sunshine Law by failing to produce the requested records. Among its findings, however, the trial court found, "there remain disputed issues of material fact as to whether [the DOC's] violation of chapter 610 RSMo was done 'knowingly' and/or 'purposefully.'" The tr ial court stated: The [c]ourt is aware of Glasgow School District v. Howard County Coroner, 572 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. App. W.D 2019) which held that the determination of a violation of the Sunshine Law was not a distinct judicial unit that would permit appeal before a determination of whether the violation was knowingly or purposely. The [c]ourt believes that the determination of these issues involves separate facts and credibility issues that are distinct from the legal issues of whether certain documents are subject to disclosure. The factual findings required by [section] 610.027.3 and .4 do not overlap with the findings required to determine the nature of the documents and the application of other portions of the Sunshine Law and related statutes to those documents. The [c]ourt finds that the determination under [section] 610.027.3 and .4 is similar in nature to the findings required in an action under [sections] 536.085 and 536.087, which occur in a separate proceeding where the issue is substantial justification. The trial court also stated that "the determination that [the DOC] violated the Sunshine Law is a distinct judicial unit and under Rule 74.01(b) enters this judgment finding that there is no just reason for delay and with the intent that it be immediately appealable." Hynes filed a motion to amend the judgment or for a nunc pro tunc in May 2022. In her motion, Hynes stated that the trial court found that there were disputed issues of material fact on whether the DOC knowingly or purposely violated the Sunshine Law and that the trial court denied summary judgment on that part of her claim. Hynes further contended that Glasgow made it clear that a trial court cannot use Rule 74.01(b) unless one complete claim is fully

6

adjudicated. Hynes then requested the trial court "to remove the finding that there is no just reason for delay of an appeal under Rule 74.01." The DOC replied without addressing the finality of the partial summary judgment, saying instead, "[Hynes'] motion is nothing more than unhappiness with this [c]ourt's ruling, which is the purpose of her appeal." After a hearing, the trial court denied Hynes' motion. 3

The DOC appealed in April 2022, and Hynes conditionally cross-appealed soon after. This Court consolidated the two appeals. In June 2022, Hynes filed a combined motion to dismiss and motion for damages for frivolous appeal under Rule 84.19 with this Court, arguing that the partial summary judgment was not final and thus the DOC's appeal from a non-final judgment was "patently frivolous" and warranted damages under Rule 84.19. These motions were taken with the case. Legal Analysis While Hynes and the DOC raise a combined eight points on appeal, we find Hynes' finality of judgment argument dispositive. In Hynes' first point on appeal, Hynes argues that the trial court's partial summary judgment was not final under Rule 74.01(b) because it "does not resolve plaintiff Hynes' claim that the department knowingly and purposely violated the Sunshine Law." We agree.

3 We lack a transcript of this May 23, 2022, hearing, and thus lack an explanation of why the trial court failed to address the finality of the partial summary judgment.

7

I. Appealing a Non-Final Judgment under Glasgow "The right to appeal is purely statutory and, where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists." Wilson v. City of St. Louis, 600 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Mo. banc 2020) (citation omitted). Specifically, section 512.020(5), the statute applicable here, provides that "final judgments" are appealable. 4 See id. "If the trial court's judgment is not final, the reviewing court lacks juris