Gates v. Missoula County Commissioners

NO. 88-401

IN THE STTPRFME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA

1988

J A Y L E E G A T E S , AND MARK J . ANDRUS,

Petitioners,

-vs-

M I S S O U L A COUNTY C O M M I S S I O N E R S , D A N I E L

MAGONE, S H E R I F F , DR. TjONG, C H I S F OF

MEDICAT, SERT'ICES,

Respondents.

O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING :

COUNSEL O F RECORD:

For P e t i t i o n e r s :

Jay L e e G a t e s , pro se, D e e r L o d q e , M o n t a n a

M a r k J A n d r u s , p r o s e , M i s s o u l a , Montana

For R e s p o n d e n t :

Hon. M i k e G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a

R o b e r t D e s c h a m p s , 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,

M o n t a n a ; M i c h a e l W. S e h e s t e d t , D e p u t v , M i s s o u l a

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Dec. 3, 1988

Decided: December 29, 1988

u c-' -- --

>

'. .

. -Y

-+ Clerk

,

' _ ?\

.-.

c3

-

-a-

Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Jay Lee Gates and Mark Andrus petition this Court for

relief under the habeas corpus and declaratory judgment

statutes. They allege a violation of their constitutional

rights due to several conditions of confinement at the

Missoula County Jail. Petitioners also allege a tort cause

of action against Missoula County officials for the violation

of their constitutional rights. We dismiss the petitioners'

claim for relief.

The issues involved in this matter are:

1. Is habeas corpus an appropriate remedy?

2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider Peti-

tioners' request for relief as a declaratory judgment or a

tort cause of action?

Both petitioners were incarcerated in the Missoula

County Jail in Missoula, Montana, at the filing of this

petition. Since that date, Mr. Gates has been transferred to

Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge and Mr. Andrus' six month

term in the Missoula County Jail beginning in April of 1988

has presumably been served. During the periods of their

incarceration in Missoula, the petitioners contend that they

were denied adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care,

exercise, individual security, and a law library, all of

which violated their constitutional rights under the 8th

Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment,

the similar prohibition in Article 11, Section 22 of the

Montana Constitution, and also the 14th Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.

Is habeas corpus an appropriate remedy?

The habeas corpus statute 5 46-22-101 (1), MCA, provides

that:

. . . every person imprisoned or otherwise re-

strained of his liberty within this state may

prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into

the cause - -

of such imprisonment andrestraint and,

if illegal, - - delivered therefrom.

- to be (Emphasis

added.

This statute allows a prisoner to challenge the legal

sufficiency of the cause for incarceration. The petitioners

do not allege that the cause of their incarceration is unlaw-

ful. We conclude that habeas corpus is not an appropriate

remedy.

I1

Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider Petition-

er's request for relief as a declaratory judgment or a tort

cause of action?

Petitioners seek declaratory and injunctive relief

against Missoula County officials whom they contend have

control over the care and condition of the facility in ques-

tion. The Montana Supreme Court's power to hear any matter

by exercising original jurisdiction is subiect to Rule 17 (al

The supreme court is an appellate court but it

is empowered by the constitution of Montana to hear

and determine such original and remedial writs as

may be necessary or proper to the complete exercise

of its jurisdiction. The institution of such

original proceedings in the supreme court is-some-

times justified by circumstance's of an emergency

nature, as when a cause of action or a right has

arisen under conditions making due consideration in

the trial courts and due appeal to this court an

inadequate remedy, or when supervision of a trial

court other than by appeal. is deemed necessary or

proper.

In determining whether to assuHe original jurisdiction

in 1.j.qht of that rule, this Court has considered several

factors as set forth in State ex re1 Thompson v. School

District (1970), 156 Mont. 79, 80, 474 P.2d 700, 701:

" . .

. various fact questions appear . .. origi-

nal jurisdiction by this Court will not achieve a

thorough examination into the multiple problems

presented, and, further, a class action could be

instituted in any appropriate district court where-

in exists facilities for taking testimony and

making findings of fact and conclusions of law

which would be determinative of the fact questions

now existing ...

"

Mr. Gates and Mr. Andrus present a number of factual

questions which they ask this Court to resolve. Those dis-

puted factual issues should be directed to an appropriate

district court, since it is not the role of this Court to

function as primary factfinder. The petitioners have not

demonstrated any emergency which would justify a departure

from the usual proceedings in district court to decide the

merits of the issues raised. Furthermore, the County points

out that at the time this petition was filed, there was a

class action pending in which the petitioners were involved,

counsel was appointed, and the same issues were raised in

that suit as appear in this matter.

We conclude that there is no basis upon which this Court

should accept jurisdiction. Petitioners' request for relief

is denied and dismissed, without prejudice.

I / CHi'ef Justice /I