Thompson v. Long ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                          No. 05-194
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2005 MT 321N
    JOSEPH W. THOMPSON and DELIA K. KELLY,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    MACK LONG, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
    FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS OF MISSOULA, MONTANA
    Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:         The District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DV 05-162,
    Honorable James A. Haynes, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Joseph W. Thompson, pro se, Stevensville, Montana
    For Respondent:
    John F. Lynch and Robert N. Lane, Department of Fish,
    Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: October 5, 2005
    Decided: December 19, 2005
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section 1, 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     Joseph Thompson and Delia Kelly, appearing pro se, appeal the Order of the Montana
    Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, denying their Application for Writ of
    Mandate. We affirm.
    ¶3     The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying
    Plaintiffs’ Application for Writ of Mandate.
    ¶4     In late January 2005, Thompson and Kelly asked a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’
    (FWP) biologist to determine whether property adjacent to their property was critical elk
    winter range. Thompson and Kelly sought this determination because they were concerned
    about a subdivision that was proposed for the adjacent property, claiming they had observed
    approximately seventy head of elk winter on the adjacent property and their property for the
    previous three winters. After a site visit, FWP sent a letter to the Ravalli County Planning
    Department with reference to the proposed housing development, indicating that the
    proposed site was “away from important elk winter range.” Thompson and Kelly strongly
    disagreed and filed an Application for Writ of Mandate in the District Court, demanding that
    FWP retract its letter to the Planning Department and declare the proposed building site to be
    2
    critical winter range for elk. The District Court denied the application, relying on § 27-26-
    102, MCA.
    ¶5     As noted above, we have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I,
    Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides
    for memorandum opinions. It is clear from the Application, the briefs and the record that this
    issue is clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court correctly
    interpreted. Section 27-26-102, MCA, in relevant part, provides:
    (1) A writ of mandamus may be issued . . . to compel the performance of an
    act that the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
    station . . . .
    ¶6     The FWP’s determination that the property in question was not critical elk winter
    range was a discretionary determination and not the breach of an obligation “specially
    enjoined” under the law. As correctly noted by the District Court, Thompson and Kelly
    presented no statutory or other clear legal duty imposed on, or violated by, FWP. The court
    observed that “[a]t most, a factual dispute exists over whether this small area of Ravalli
    County is critical winter elk habitat. It is improper to issue a writ of mandate to resolve a
    factual dispute . . . .” See Jeppeson v. State, Dept. of State Lands (1983), 
    205 Mont. 282
    ,
    288, 
    667 P.2d 428
    , 431, citing State ex. rel. Butte Youth Serv. Center v. Murray (1976), 
    170 Mont. 171
    , 
    551 P.2d 1017
    (“Mandamus will not lie to compel performance of a discretionary
    function.”).
    ¶7     We agree. Mandamus was not available to Thompson and Kelly as a remedy.
    Therefore, we affirm the District Court.
    3
    /S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
    We Concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    /S/ JOHN WARNER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-194

Filed Date: 12/19/2005

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014