R. Ball. v. Gootkin ( 2023 )

ORIGINAL 04/18/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Case Number: OP 23-0139
OP 23-0139
REGINALD BALL,
VIR 1 8 2°23
Bow' f1
Petitioner, C ;-- .,,rt
....
v.
ORDER
BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, and CARLEEN
GREEN, Contracts Manager, MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents.
Representing himself, Reginald Ball has filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
contending that the Montana Department of Corrections (the Department or DOC), its
Director, and its Contract Manager have not performed their lawful duties, pursuant to the
Interstate Corrections Compact between the State of Montana and the State of Virginia
(hereinafter Compact). Counsel for the Montana Department of Corrections responds that
Ball's Petition should be denied because Ball has not met the criteria for a writ to issue.
Ball claims discrimination based on his status as an inmate under the Compact. He
points out that he is not serving any sentence imposed in Montana, and he reiterates that he
is not a Montana State inmate "per se." Ball provides a copy of the Agreement between
the State of Montana and the State of Virginia (Agreement). Ball requests that the State
"honor the [A]greement" to ensure that he receives equal treatment opportunities "to
rehabilitate while [housed] in their custody and care . . . ."
In its response, the Department asserts that Ball is not entitled to a writ of mandate.
The Department points to the general rule, where a party must make a prima facie showing
of entitlement to the performance of a clear legal duty of a ministerial act and that no speedy
and adequate legal remedy is available. Sections 27-26-102(1) and (2), MCA; Smith v.
Cnty. of Missoula, 1999 MT 330, ¶ 28, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834. The Department
explains that Ba11 is a prisoner of the Commonwealth of Virginia and that the Montana
State Prison received him on August 24, 2021, pursuant to the Compact. The Department
further explains that the Agreement grants Montana, as a receiving state, the right to
exercise its discretion, when classifying or reclassifying an inmate, offering treatment
programs, providing vocational education, and assigning inmate jobs. The Department
asserts that Ball may appeal any placement decision and therefore has a plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy under the law. The Department provides a copy of the operational policy
for classification as well as the forms for an inmate's appeal of a classification action. The
Department asserts that Ball has not established a prima facie case under M. R. App.
P. 14(5).
As the Department notes, Ba11 has a present administrative remedy: the right to
appeal the prison's decisions regarding an inmate's custody level, education, work
assignments, and treatment. Ball fails to acknowledge this remedy, much less address its
speed and adequacy. A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for alternative remedies. Ball
has not demonstrated entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Section 27-26-102(1), MCA;
Smith, ¶ 28. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ball's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Reginakikll personally.
DATED this 1 day of April, 2023.
2
9.4Pi •
;2 410..........
Justices
e,.___..
•
3