Opinion
OP 22-0007
01-18-2022
SHANE PHILLIP NICKERSON, Petitioner, v. D.O.C. of MONTANA, Attorney General of Montana, Respondents.
ORDER
Shane Phillip Nickerson has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, seeking his return to Montana State Prison (MSP), in Deer Lodge, Montana, after the Department of Corrections transferred him out of state. Nickerson claims that he has been ''housed in a lockdown facility in Sioux Falls/' South Dakota, and that his mental and physical health are suffering due to the small, confined space for 20 to 22 hours per day and few exercise options. He explains that MSP recognized his conditions after his "grievances were granted" and states that "MSP is beneficial to [his] needs for adequate care." He asserts that his placement in locked housing for several months "was out of retaliation for litigating [his] case, due to being sent to South Dakota when raising issues of [his] confinement in [his] federal habeas." Nickerson adds that he has no appeal remedy.
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.
Nickerson has not demonstrated a clear legal duty that the Department of Corrections must house him at MSP. This Court has no authority to decide where an inmate should be placed or housed. Almost twenty years ago, the Court determined that an inmate "has neither a federal nor a state constitutional liberty interest in being housed exclusively in the state prison located in Deer Lodge, Montana[.]" Wright v. Mahoney, 2003 MT 141, ¶ 15, 316 Mont. 173, 71 P.3d 1195. We reached this conclusion after reviewing decisions from the United States Supreme Court:
While the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it is nevertheless well-settled that:
Given a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that the State have more than one prison for convicted felons; nor does it guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be placed in any particular prison if, as is likely, the State has more than one correctional institution .... The conviction has sufficiently extinguished the defendant's liberty interest to empower the State to confine him in any of its prisons.Wright, ¶ 8 (quoting Meachum v. Fano, 421 U.S. 215, 224-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538 (1975) (emphasis in original)).
Nickerson has not set forth a prima facie case for Constitutional violations or performance of a clear legal duty that this Court may compel by writ of mandamus. Section 27-26-102, MCA. See Smith, ¶ 28.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Nickerson's Petition for 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 Shane Phillip Nickerson personally.