Hewitt v. Mont. First Judicial Dist. Court

• Decision Date: 22 November 2022
• Docket Number: OP 22-0636
• Parties: JUDSON T. HEWITT, Petitioner, v. MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, THE HON. KATHY SEELEY, District Judge, Presiding, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

JUDSON T. HEWITT, Petitioner, v. MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, THE HON. KATHY SEELEY, District Judge, Presiding, Respondent.

No. OP 22-0636

Supreme Court of Montana

November 22, 2022

ORDER

Representing himself, Petitioner Judson T. Hewitt (Judson) has filed a Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control over the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, and Judge Kathy Seeley.

Judson contends that he "petition[s] the Montana Supreme Court for a consideration to be made for the case, so far not performed by Judge Kathy Seeley on any indication from documents for facts and law which were presented." He explains that he filed a civil action on February 11, 2019 in District Court and that the defendants in the underlying case "appear as trustees of a trust." He states that "[t]he cause is for recovery of a house and related matters." Judson further states that he has filed several pleadings and letters with the court. His concerns are about the "false statements" filed by opposing counsel and that "Judge Seeley did not observe the facts and arguments in the time prior to, at the time of, and subsequent to the [judgment]." Judson includes several attachments, such as the court's Order and the register of actions.

Exercise of supervisory control is discretionary and on a case-by-case basis. M. R. App. P. 14(3). "This extraordinary remedy can be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate." State v. Spady. 2015 MT 218, ¶ 11, 380 Mont. 179, 354 P.3d 590 (citations omitted). "The case must meet one of three additional criteria: (a) [T]he other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice; (b) [C]onstitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved; or (c) [T]he other court has granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case." Spady, ¶ 11 (quoting M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c)).

Upon review of the attachments, Judge Seeley has ordered the case closed. Judson filed his complaint in 2019, but it appears he did not prosecute the civil action in a timely fashion. After issuing a Status Order, the court closed the matter on January 10, 2022. Judson sought to re-open the case and vacate the court's order of dismissal, which the court did. Judson then issued summons to the defendants that were returned on February 9,2022. Counsel for the underlying defendants moved for dismissal, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6). On June 15, 2022, the District Court issued an Order on Motion to Dismiss, I noting that while Judson may have moved for summary judgment, he did not file the accompanying brief. MUDCR 2. The court provided the background and history of the proceeding. The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case.

Judson is not entitled to a writ...