Crooks v. Maynard

• Citation: 732 P.2d 281,112 Idaho 312
• Decision Date: 30 January 1987
• Docket Number: No. 15983,15983
• Parties: Donna CROOKS, Petitioner, v. Honorable John H. MAYNARD, District Judge, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 281

732 P.2d 281

112 Idaho 312

Donna CROOKS, Petitioner, v. Honorable John H. MAYNARD, District Judge, Respondent.

No. 15983.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Jan. 30, 1987.

William J. Tway, Faber F. Tway, Anton Hohler of Tway & Tway, Boise, for petitioner, Crooks.

Brian K. Julian, Boise, for respondent, Judge Maynard.

Byron Johnson, Boise, for intervenor, Idaho District Judges' Association.

Roger Madsen, Boise, for intervenor, Association of Idaho Counties.

DONALDSON, Justice.

This case arises out of a dispute between an administrative district judge and a district court clerk. The district court clerk, Petitioner Crooks, initiated an original proceeding in the Supreme Court requesting an Alternative Writ of Prohibition be issued against Judge Maynard, the administrative district judge. The case was submitted to a Panel of Masters for the purpose of receiving evidence, making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and entering a recommendation to the Court. The Masters recommended that a Writ of Prohibition should not be issued. We agree and accordingly, deny the application for the Writ of Prohibition.

At all times relevant to these proceedings, Donna Crooks was the Clerk of the District Court, and ex officio Auditor and Recorder for the County of Nez Perce, Idaho, and John Maynard was the Administrative District Judge of the Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho. Nez Perce County is in the Second Judicial District. The controversy between the two parties is really an issue of whether the administrative district judge and/or the court clerk has supervisory powers over deputy district court clerks when they are performing judicial functions.

The facts, as found by the Masters, are straight forward. Clerk Crooks hired Brenda Holmes as a deputy clerk some time in April of 1985. Holmes' functions were to aid in the evaluation, coordination and organization of the duties of the deputy clerks of the district court. Subsequently, on April 23, 1985, Judge Maynard issued an administrative order which addressed the hiring of Brenda Holmes. Premised upon her hiring without the knowledge of the administrative district judge and without the opportunity for any judge to appraise her qualifications and integrity, the order stated that Holmes "shall perform no duties connected with the operation of the courts nor shall she interfere with the manner that the deputies perform their duties." The order went on to require Clerk Crooks to submit a plan to restore the working conditions of the deputy clerks to their former excellent status, or to cease further interference with the deputy clerks' performance of their duties.

On April 24, 1985, Judge Maynard found both Crooks and Holmes in violation of the April 23 order and had them jailed for contempt. They were released the following day by order of this Court upon their application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. On the same day, Judge Maynard entered an order stating the circumstances which gave rise to the contempt of court determination.

On April 30, 1985, Clerk Crooks initiated the present proceeding which is a petition to the Supreme Court for an Alternative Writ of Prohibition, to restrain Judge Maynard from enforcing the April 23 order, or any like order, and from interfering with the operation of the office of the clerk of the district court for Nez Perce county.

On May 15, 1985, Judge Maynard issued another administrative order which, in effect, rescinded the administrative order of April 23, and the contempt order of April 25. However, the order further held that Holmes was not permitted to act as a deputy clerk because she was not hired pursuant to the established practice.

On July 12, 1985, Clerk Crooks filed an Amended Petition for Alternative Writ of Prohibition. In this amended petition, Clerk Crooks sought resolution of two issues:

"(a) Should Judge Maynard be restrained for enforcing the administrative orders entered on April 23, 1985 and May 15, 1985, forbidding Brenda Holmes or any other person that may be hired without any consultation, notice or consent of a district judge to act as a deputy clerk of the district court"?

"(b) Should Judge Maynard be restrained from interfering with the operation of the office of the clerk of the district court and ex officio auditor and recorder of Nez Perce County, Idaho"?

A Writ of Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy. Rust v. Stewart, 7 Idaho 558, 64 P. 222 (1901). Its purpose is to "arrest" the proceeding of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person, and where there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise available at law. I.C. §§ 7-401, -402.

In her Amended Petition for Alternative Writ of Prohibition, Clerk Crooks requested that Judge Maynard be restrained from enforcing his orders of April 23 and May 15, 1985, forbidding Brenda Holmes or any other person from acting as a deputy clerk without prior approval of the district court. Clerk Crooks also requested a general injunction, prohibiting Judge Maynard from interfering with the operations of the office of the clerk of the district court in Nez Perce County.

Before we address the ultimate controversy surrounding this case, we need to point out that part of the relief requested by Crooks has become moot. The order entered by Judge Maynard on April 23, 1985, was rescinded by the order entered on May 15, 1985. For this reason, a prohibitory writ should not be issued restraining Judge Maynard in respect to the enforcement of the April 23 order.

Also, Clerk Crooks requested in her Amended Petition for an Alternative Writ of Prohibition that Judge Maynard be restrained from interfering with the operation of the office of ex officio auditor and recorder of Nez Perce County. However, after examining the evidence presented to the Masters, we conclude the Judge Maynard in no way interfered with Clerk Crooks' functions or duties as ex officio auditor or recorder for the county. The record is totally lacking with respect to such evidence, and therefore, there is no basis for issuing a prohibitory writ in respect to Clerk Crooks' functions as auditor and recorder.

We now turn to the real heart of this case. Clerk Crooks requested that Judge Maynard be prohibited from interfering with her duties as court clerk. This requires a determination of the respective powers and duties of the administrative district judge and the clerk of the district court of a judicial district. More specifically, we are concerned with the relative roles of the administrative district judge and the clerk of the district court in respect to the hiring, supervision and firing of the deputy court clerks.

The beginning point in our analysis is the Idaho Constitution and the relative powers the document gives to clerks of the district court and to judges. Prior to statehood, clerks of the district court were appointed by judges and served as a clerk for a particular district, subject to judicial control. The Organic Act of the Territory of Idaho, 12 Stat. 808, 811 ch. 17, § 9 (1863). However, the Idaho Constitution changed the selection process of the clerk. Art. 5, § 16 of the constitution provides: "A clerk of the district court for each county shall be elected by the qualified voters thereof at the time and in the manner prescribed by law for the election of members of the legislature, and shall hold his office for the term of four (4) years." This constitutional provision changed the status of the clerk from that of an appointed official to that of an elected official. The question that arises is whether this provision allows the clerk of the district court, as an elected official, the right to exercise unbridled discretion over the administration of his or her office.

The answer is obviously no. The office of the clerk of the district court is created in art. 5, § 16. Art. 5 of the constitution is the article creating the judicial branch. Therefore, we conclude that the office of the district court clerk is in fact part of the judicial branch. Our conclusion is buttressed by the holding in State v. Wharfield, 41 Idaho 14, 236 P. 862 (1925). There, the Court held that a county prosecuting attorney was a judicial officer and not an executive officer--because the office is created in art. 5 of the constitution.

In another section of the constitution, art. 18, § 6 (addressing county organization and offices) provides that the clerk of the district court shall also serve as the county's ex officio auditor and recorder. That section further provides that the "auditor and recorder and clerk of the district court shall be empowered by the county commissioners to appoint such deputies and clerical assistance as the business of their office may require, said deputies and clerical assistants to receive such compensation as may be fixed by the county commissioners." The question before us now is what effect does art. 18, § 6 have on the status of clerk of the district court as a judicial officer created by art. 5, § 16?

An opinion of this Court issued shortly after statehood addressed both art. 5, § 16, and art. 18, § 6. In Hilliard v. Shoshone County, 3 Idaho 103, 27 P. 678 (1891), the Court was faced with deciding the amount of compensation that should be paid to the person holding the offices of clerk of the district court and auditor and recorder. The Court there stated:

"Thus far the constitution has provided for a clerk of the district for each county, and has made this officer ex-officio auditor and recorder. He is still one person and one officer, although he holds two or three distinct and separate offices, if we please to call them so, and performs the duties of all. We must not confound the office with the officer or person who holds the office. The compensation is not paid to the office of the district clerk, nor to the office or offices of...