# Gates v. Missoula County Commissioners

> Montana Supreme Court · December 29, 1988 · 235 Mont. 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/879723

## Case

- **Full name:** JAY LEE GATES, and Mark J. Andrus, Petitioners, v. MISSOULA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Daniel Magone, Sheriff, Dr. Long, Chief of Medical Services, Respondents
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 29, 1988
- **Citations:** 235 Mont. 261; 766 P.2d 884; 1988 Mont. LEXIS 375
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Weber
- **Judges:** Weber, Turnage, Sheehy, McDonough, Gulbrandson
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/879723

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that habeas corpus is not the correct remedy for constitutional claims, including lack of "adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, exercise, individual security, and a law library" and that "disputed factual issues should be directed to an appropriate district …

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/879723. Public record. Not legal advice.