Bailey v. Gootkin ( 2023 )

12/05/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: OP 23-0680
OP 23-0680
D'WAYNE ROSCHELL BAILEY,
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
BRIAN GOOTKIN, AND NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
HONORABLE MATTHEW CUFFE,
FILED
DEC 5 2023
Respondents. Bowen Greenwood
Clerk of Supreme Court
State+ of Montana
D'Wayne Roschell Bailey moves this Court "to take supervisory control" over the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County. We deem his pleading a petition for a
writ of supervisory control, M. R. App. P. 14(3), and amend the caption to include the
District Court and presiding Judge. M. R. App. P. 14(6).
Bailey is serving a forty-five-year prison sentence, imposed in June 2005. His
pleading is not clear. It appears that Bailey is requesting this Court to intervene in his
attempt to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County District Court
because the court has not filed it or has not taken the filing under consideration. Bailey
also includes a letter to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, questioning why
documents were returned to him. This may be because Bailey's pleading, including the
certificate of service, is deficient. He wrote the name of the Attomey General, but he did
not provide an address. It appears he failed to serve the District Court Judge, as required
for a petition for supervisory control. M. R. App. P. 14(6).
Bailey also claims he is not being provided with documents from his prior criminal
cases. However, he cannot obtain documents by way of a motion after his cases are
completed. There is no "live" action to entertain his motions. Bailey's efforts to compel
discovery and to produce documents are not the proper method. Bailey may receive copies
of documents upon request and payment to the Clerk of District Court.1
Supervisory control operates on a case-by-case basis. "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 (citing M. R. App. P. 14(3); Redding v. McCarter, 2012 MT
144, ¶ 17, 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189). The case must meet one of three additional
criteria. Spady, ¶ 11; M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c).
Bailey's motion fails to establish jurisdiction for this original proceeding. M. R.
App. P. 14(3). There is no pending proceeding in District Court, and Bailey has not met
any of the criteria. We secured a copy of the District Court's docket sheet. The most recent
filing occurred on October 26, 2018, when the District Court denied Bailey's Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order. Bailey's underlying criminal case has been closed since
that date. There is no matter in the District Court over which to take supervisory control.
M. R. App. P. 14(3) and 14(6). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Bailey's Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is
DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Matthew
Cuffe, District Court Judge; Tricia Brooks, Clerk of District Court, Lincoln County, under
'In 2016, we denied Bailey's request for mandamus against two district courts wherein he sought
to compel production of documents in his criminal and civil cases. We explained to him that he
may purchase copies of documents from a court record under Montana law and that while he may
be indigent, he still must pay for those copies, pursuant to § 25-10-404(1), MCA. Bailey v.
Nineteenth Judicial Dist. Ct. and Third Judicial Dist. Ct., No. OP 16-0486, Order denying writ
(Mont. Aug. 30, 2016).
2
Cause No. DC-04-89; Brian Gootkin, Department of Corrections Director; counsel of
record, and D"Wayne Roschell Bailey along with a copy of M. R. App. P. 14.
DATED this *aay of December, 2023.
Chief Justice
3