Gates v. Missoula County Com'rs
| Decision Date | 29 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-401,88-401 |
| Citation | 766 P.2d 884,235 Mont. 261 |
| Parties | 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 |
Jay Lee Gates, Deer Lodge, pro se. Mark J Andrus, Missoula, pro se.
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Robert Deschamps, III, Co. Atty., Michael W. Sehestedt, Deputy, Missoula, for respondents.
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 Petitioners' 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 II, 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 Sec. 46-22-101(1), MCA, provides that:
... every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint and, if illegal, to be delivered therefrom. (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 unlawful. We conclude that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy.
Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner'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 question. The Montana Supreme Court's power to hear any matter by exercising original jurisdiction is subject to Rule 17(a), M.R.App.P.:
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 sometimes justified by circumstances of an emergency nature, as when a cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bird v. Salmonsen
...guilty to the offenses over a decade prior, he had since waived any constitutional claims. Id., citing, Gates v. Missoula Co. Comm 'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). Bird failed to demonstrate his incarceration was illegal; the petition and motion were denied. III. Bird's......
-
Quinlan v. Bludworth
... ... District, Rosebud County, found Mr. Quinlan guilty of Incest ... of S.Q., his daughter. Mr ... See e.g., ... Gates v. Missoula Cnty. Comm'rs , 235 Mont. 261, ... 262, 766 P.2d 884, ... ...
-
Sage v. Gamble
...habeas corpus relief is not available to determine whether other constitutional rights have been violated. Gates v. Missoula County Comm'rs (1988), 235 Mont. 261, 766 P.2d 884. Sage maintains that the Board waived this issue of subject matter jurisdiction by failing to raise it during the D......
-
Lawrence v. Guyer
...constitutional challenges are also not appropriately raised in this habeas corpus proceeding. See Gates v. Missoula County Comm'rs , 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). ¶12 Lawrence’s Motion for Plain Error Review, in which he requests a full court docket review under federal l......