Opinion
OP 24-0019
01-30-2024
WALTER JASON PURKHISER, Petitioner, v. PETE BLUDWORTH, WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER
We amend the caption to indicate the Warden of the Crossroads Correctional Center, where Petitioner Walter Jason Purkhiser is incarcerated. Representing himself, Purkhiser has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus along with a Notice of Appeal. He is using the writ of habeas corpus form to re-open the youth-in-need-of-care matter, concerning his daughter, from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Purkhiser contends .that he deserves "to have custody of his child." Purkhiser challenges this Court's decision and raises the same argument about abandonment. In re the Matter of S.P., No. DA • 20-0314, 2021 MT 57N, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 221 (Mar. 9, 2021).
Purkhiser cannot revive his underlying proceeding or an appeal after a decision has been reached. Any evidence would have needed to appear previously and not in an original proceeding. M. R. App. P. 14(2). This Court affirmed the District Court's termination of the Mother's and Father's parental rights to the daughter. Matter of S.P., ¶ 2. "The supreme court's decision to uphold a decision of the district court constitutes an affirmance of that portion of the judgment or order of the district court from which the party took the appeal." M. R. App. P. 19(1)(a). .
"Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the relitigation of a claim that the party has already had an opportunity to litigate." Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51, ¶ 15, 331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267 (citations omitted). Through counsel, Purkhiser raised several issues, including that the District Court erred in its decision concerning abandonment. Matter of S.P., ¶ 8. We decided:
Finally, we reject Father's contention the District Court erred in terminating his parental rights based on abandonment. It is clear from the District Court's order terminating Father's parental rights the District Court terminated Father's rights under § 4l-3-609(1)(f), MCA, for failure to successfully complete his treatment plan and his unlikelihood to change in a reasonable time. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father's parental rights.Matter of S.P., ¶ 12. "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the reopening of an issue that has been litigated and determined in a prior suit." Baltrusch, ¶ 15 (citing Holtman v. 4-G's Plumbing and Heating, 264 Mont. 432, 439, 872 P.2d 318, 3221994)). This Court's prior decision bars Purkhiser from raising the same issues or any new issues because of his appeal. The doctrine of res judicata applies when this Court entered its final judgment. Baltrusch, ¶ 15. Purkhiser is precluded from raising issues about his daughter's custody again.
Purkhiser is not entitled to his request of custody of his daughter. We point out that Purkhiser has counsel to represent him in his pending criminal appeal with this Court. State v. Purkhiser, No. DA 22-0637.
IT IS ORDERED that Purkhiser's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record; to Chad M. Wright, Appellate Defender Division; Marcia Boris, Lincoln County Attorney, and to Walter Jason Purkhiser personally.