From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ball v. Gootkin

Supreme Court of Montana
May 17, 2022
OP 22-0217 (Mont. May. 17, 2022)

Opinion

OP 22-0217

05-17-2022

REGINALD BALL, Petitioner, v. BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, Montana Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

Representing himself, Reginald Ball has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, or alternatively, a Writ of Prohibition, against Director Brian Gootkin of the Department of Corrections, because the Montana State Prison has unlicensed barbers as part of its barber shop services. Ball contends that these unlicensed barbers provide "services in violation of section 37-31-301, [MCA], Prohibited Acts." Ball states that these current barbers do not know how to cut his hair properly because he is African-American. Ball adds that the State is paying these barbers. He puts forth that "the Respondent is operating an unlicensed barber shop and is employing unlicensed barbers to render these services," in violation of statutory law. He concludes that Director Gootkin has a clear and legal duty "to follow the law(s) of the State of Montana . . . ."

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, 128, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834.

A writ of mandamus requires two elements. Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith, 1) 28. To perfect this claim, Ball must show a clear legal duty along with the lack of another remedy. A writ of mandate will not issue absent the availability of another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Smith, ¶ 28; § 27-26-102, MCA. Ball has a plain and adequate remedy. Ball may seek a separate civil action concerning his claims. Ball is not entitled to a writ of mandate. 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.


Summaries of

Ball v. Gootkin

Supreme Court of Montana
May 17, 2022
OP 22-0217 (Mont. May. 17, 2022)
Case details for

Ball v. Gootkin

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD BALL, Petitioner, v. BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, Montana Department…

Court:Supreme Court of Montana

Date published: May 17, 2022

Citations

OP 22-0217 (Mont. May. 17, 2022)