Nordholm v. MacDonald , 2006 MT 280N ( 2006 )

No. DA 06-0024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 280N
_____________________________________
WILLIAM NORDHOLM,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
JAMES MacDONALD, Warden of Crossroads
Corrections Center,
Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________________
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Toole, Cause No. DV 05-064,
The Honorable Marc G. Buyske, Presiding Judge.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
William Nordholm, pro se, Shelby, Montana
For Respondent:
J. Daniel Hoven and Trevor L. Uffelman, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry &
Hoven, P.C., Helena, Montana
_____________________________________
Submitted on Briefs: October 3, 2006
Decided: October 31, 2006
Filed:
____________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court 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 William Nordholm (Nordholm) appeals from the decision of the Ninth Judicial
District, Toole County, affirming a decision of the Small Claims Court to dismiss
Nordholm’s claims for monetary damages against James MacDonald, in his capacity as
warden of Crossroads Correctional Center (CCC). We affirm.
¶3 Nordholm is an inmate at CCC, a private prison located in Shelby, Montana. CCC
operates under a contract with the Department of Corrections (DOC). Nordholm filed an
action seeking $1,000 in alleged damages from CCC caused by water leaking from a pipe
onto a shelf in Nordholm’s cell that held items of his personal property.
¶4 The Small Claims Court held a trial on the matter on August 17, 2005, and issued
a written opinion in favor of MacDonald based upon the facts that Nordholm had not
exhausted all grievance procedures and that Nordholm had failed to store his property in
his personal property box as required by CCC procedure. The Small Claims Court noted
that DOC had approved CCC’s grievance procedure. CCC’s grievance procedure
allowed Nordholm the option of filing his claim with CCC, or, in the alternative, of filing
his claim with DOC. Nordholm filed an appeal to the District Court.
2
¶5 The District Court, in an order dated December 9, 2005, affirmed the decision of
the Small Claims Court on the grounds that the Small Claims Court correctly had
resolved questions of law. The District Court specifically held that “substantial
evidence” supported the conclusion that Nordholm had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing his complaint in Small Claims Court. This appeal
followed.
¶6 The district court may not conduct a trial de novo on an appeal from small claims
court to district court. Section 25-35-803(2), MCA. The district court’s inquiry on
appeal is limited to determining whether the small claims court correctly resolved
questions of law. Section 25-35-803(2), MCA. “Although the district court review is
limited to questions of law, the question of whether the small claims court’s findings of
fact were clearly erroneous is such a question of law.” Spence v. Ortloff, 271 Mont. 533,
533, 898 P.2d 1232, 1233 (1995).
¶7 We use a three-step test to determine whether the findings are clearly erroneous.
First, a court’s findings are clearly erroneous if not supported by substantial credible
evidence. Second, a court’s findings are clearly erroneous if the court has
misapprehended the effect of the evidence. Finally, a court’s findings are clearly
erroneous if a review of the record leaves the reviewing court with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Spence, 271 Mont. at 533, 898 P.2d at
1233.
¶8 Nordholm argues on appeal that no statutory authority or common law supports
the Small Claims Court’s determination that he was required to exhaust CCC’s
3
administrative remedies before bringing this action in Small Claims Court. He contends
that as a private corporation, CCC cannot force him first to exhaust administrative
remedies before filing an action in small claims court. Nordholm also argues that any
grievance filed by him pursuant to CCC’s administrative remedies would have been futile
in light of the fact that the same officials who would be reviewing his grievance
“continuously chose to ignore Nordholm’s claim.”
¶9 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that provides for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that Nordholm’s
appeal lacks merit. Substantial evidence supports the District Court’s Findings of Fact
and settled Montana law clearly controls the legal issues presented. The District Court
correctly interpreted these legal issues.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
4