Opinion
OP 22-0008
01-25-2022
REGINALD BALL, Petitioner, v. BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, Montana Department of Corrections, Respondent.
ORDER
Representing himself, Reginald Ball has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, seeking to have the Department of Corrections apply the State of Virginia Department of Corrections Offender Discipline Policy to his hearings in Montana as well as to provide "the appropriate programs of rehabilitation or treatment. . . ." Ball contends that pursuant to the interstate compact agreement between the two states for adult offender supervision, the Montana Department of Corrections must comply. Ball requests "to have the same opportunity to rehabilitate himself as he would've had in his sending state
A writ of mandamus, also known as mandate, is specific and statutorily driven. To state a claim for mandamus, a party must show entitlement to the performance of a clear legal duty by the party against whom the writ is directed and the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith v. Missoula Co., 1999 MT 330, ¶28, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834.
Upon review. Ball has not demonstrated a clear legal duty for the DOC to act to complete his requests. Ball seems to shoehorn the State of Virginia's compact into "a legal written agreement that is binding on Montana . . .' We point out that each participating state has a version. Montana's version of this Compact is found in our Montana Code Annotated. See §46-23-1115. MCA, Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. The purpose of the Compact is "to provide the framework for the promotion of public safety, to protect the rights of victims through the control and regulation of the interstate movement of offenders[.]'' Section 46-23-1115(1), Art. 1(1), MCA. "This subsection of the Compact, which is part of Montana law, recognizes the State's responsibility for its probationers, and for returning offenders when necessary, Officers of this State may enter another state at any time to apprehend an offender under supervision there. Section 46-23-1115, Article 1(4), MCA." Paid! v. Park Cty., 2009 MT 321, ¶ 34, 352 Mont. 465, 218 P.3d 1198. Nothing in this Compact addresses the application of one state's policies to another state, and Ball has not provided any reference to any law to support his argument.
Ball has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the performance of a clear legal duty. Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith, ¶ 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Ball's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, or alternatively a writ of prohibition, 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 Reginald Ball personally.