Belanus v. Gallagher , 2016 MT 186N ( 2016 )

08/02/2016
DA 15-0749
Case Number: DA 15-0749
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 186N
DUANE RONALD BELANUS,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LEO GALLAGHER,
Defendant and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDV 2014-625
Honorable Kathy Seeley, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Duane Ronald Belanus, self-represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
Mitchell A. Young, Gregory L. Bonilla, MACo Defense Services, Helena,
Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 13, 2016
Decided: August 2, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Duane Ronald Belanus sued Lewis and Clark County Attorney Leo Gallagher to
compel Gallagher to deliver copies of his entire case file from the State’s 2009
prosecution of Belanus for sexual intercourse without consent and other offenses.
Belanus was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. The First Judicial
District Court held that Gallagher had no legal duty to deliver the file to Belanus.
Belanus appeals.
¶3 Soon after his imprisonment, Belanus filed motions with the sentencing court
asking for copies of search warrants issued in his criminal case. The presiding judge
responded that the requested warrants were not part of the court file, but that he would
request Gallagher to provide copies of the warrants. Belanus then wrote several letters to
Gallagher. Gallagher responded on November 15, 2014, that he had provided the
requested information to Belanus or his agents, and that Belanus’s criminal defense
attorneys had provided that information to Belanus’s father at the conclusion of the
criminal case. Gallagher told Belanus that if he wanted additional copies of materials
from the file, Gallagher would allow Belanus’s designated agent to inspect the file and
2
identify the documents he wanted copied. Gallagher would arrange to have copies made
for Belanus’s agent.
¶4 Belanus’s civil suit in the District Court alleged that Gallagher’s failure to deliver
copies of the search warrant documents to Belanus violates his rights under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), the Montana Public Records Acts, and Article II, Sections 8
and 9, of the Montana Constitution. Belanus later conceded that his claims under the
FOIA should be dismissed. The District Court ruled against Belanus on his remaining
claims.
¶5 We review the district court’s order de novo, applying M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
Albert v. City of Billings, 2012 MT 159, ¶ 15, 365 Mont. 454, 282 P.3d 704. Summary
judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates both an absence of any
genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Albert,
¶ 15; M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Once the moving party has shown the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact, the non-moving party must present substantial evidence to raise a
genuine issue of material fact. Harris v. State, 2013 MT 16, ¶ 11, 368 Mont. 276, 294
P.3d 382.
¶6 Belanus argues that Gallagher “intentionally” failed to provide Belanus with his
case file in violation of the Montana Constitution. Belanus argues that he is “fully
authorized by law, to obtain any and all implied criminal justice information regarding
his own case.” Belanus asserts that he is “unable to physically obtain” his files, and
because he has “no ‘agents’ to send for errands over to Gallagher’s office to identify
3
documents to be copied,” he is “forced to ask for copies through the mail.” He argues
that §§ 46-15-322 and -327, MCA, “place[ ] not only an affirmative duty on Gallagher to
provide Belanus with his entire case file, but it also places an on-going duty to disclose
any new information that may be discovered and brought to Gallagher’s attention.”
¶7 Observing that the Montana Constitution “does not require a public officer to
deliver documents, only that persons not be deprived of the right to examine documents,”
the District Court found no “procedural mechanism [by which] to order Gallagher to pay
a fine or be held responsible for claimed injuries to Belanus.” The court also noted that
Gallagher had offered to supply Belanus “with whatever documents he desires that are
not victim identification information or work product.”
¶8 Article II, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution establishes a right to “examine
documents.” But there is no constitutional provision that establishes a right to have
documents delivered. The statutes executing Article II, Section 9, contemplate access to
public records—not confidential criminal justice information such as the search warrant
affidavits Belanus seeks in this case. Sections 2-6-1002, -1003, MCA. Gallagher
informed Belanus nearly two years ago that Belanus’s second attorney had given the
entire case file to Belanus’s father. Gallagher made Belanus’s file available for
examination and reproduction by inviting Belanus or a responsible agent to visit
Gallagher’s office and inspect the file. He offered to copy any documents (except for
victim identification information or work product) that Belanus or his agent requested.
Gallagher did not violate Belanus’s constitutional right to know.
4
¶9 Because Gallagher did not violate Article II, Section 9, Belanus cannot argue that
his right to participate under Article II, Section 8, was violated by Gallagher’s failure to
deliver Belanus’s case file to him. See Bryan v. Yellowstone Cnty. Elementary Sch. Dist.
No. 2, 2002 MT 264, ¶ 44, 312 Mont. 257, 60 P.3d 381 (“[T]he ‘reasonable opportunity’
standard articulated in Article II, Section 8, and § 2-3-111, MCA, demands compliance
with the right to know contained in Article II, Section 9.”).
¶10 Belanus fares no better under §§ 46-15-322 and -327, MCA. Those statutes
pertain to the production of evidence and criminal discovery during a criminal
proceeding. Belanus has not shown that the obligations under §§ 46-15-322 and -327,
MCA, extend beyond trial to a separate civil case. In any event, § 46-15-322, MCA,
requires only that the prosecutor make discovery materials “available to the defendant for
examination and reproduction.” Section 46-15-322(1), MCA. It does not require that the
prosecutor “deliver” discovery documents to a defendant. State v. Sol, 282 Mont. 69, 79,
936 P.2d 307, 313 (1997) (concluding that the State was not obligated to deliver results
of a test performed on a breathalyzer because the defendant was aware of the tests and the
State had made the results available to him “for examination and reproduction”).
¶11 Gallagher did not violate the law or constitutional mandate when he refused to
mail or otherwise deliver Belanus’s file directly to him. Once he made Belanus’s file
“available for examination and reproduction,” Gallagher was under no further legal
obligation to act.
5
¶12 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. Without
authority to support a legal duty, the District Court held correctly that there was no relief
it could grant to Belanus on his civil complaint. The District Court correctly interpreted
and applied the law. We affirm its order granting summary judgment to Gallagher.
/S/ BETH BAKER
We concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
6