Opinion
OP 22-0122
03-22-2022
RICHARD E. SHREVES, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
ORDER
Representing himself, Richard E. Shreves has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate along with two motions. Shreves contends that the Department of Corrections (DOC) is violating his rights and its own clear legal duties by failing to provide fresh fruit at every meal, as listed on the menu sheets he attaches, and by failing to provide a religious activity, Fresh Life Church, to every unit of the Low Side at the Montana State Prison on a weekly basis.
A writ of mandate, or mandamus, is specific and defined by statute. Sections 27-26-101 through 27-26-403, MCA. 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, f 28, 297 Mont. 368, 992P.2d834.
Shreves explains that in 2018, Fresh Life Church initiated on-line religious services to all four units of the Low Side of the state prison after equipment was donated. He claims that the services were stopped from April 2020 through April 2021 with the restriction of religious visitors during the pandemic. He states that the DOC allowed religious visitors after that timeframe but restricted the services to only one different unit each week, or once a month, instead of all four units each week. Shreves next contends that the prison has not provided fresh fruit with every meal for more than twelve months. He alleges that the Deputy Director stated that fresh fruit would be removed as punishment after other inmates had made hooch and pruno. He argues that this punishment should not be allowed, pursuant to DOC policy. He claims that he has gained weight due to the unhealthy options, such as canned fruit with added sugar.
Upon review, we conclude that a writ of mandate is not warranted. 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. Shreves has a plain and adequate remedy of filing a civil rights complaint in a state or federal district court. Because conditions of confinement may be challenged in an ordinary civil action, Shreves is not entitled to a writ of mandate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Shreves's Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED and DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Shreves's "Motion for Court to Direct this Petition be Deemed Served and Order the Department of Corrections to File an Answer" and "Motion For Chief Justice Mike McGrath to Recuse Himself from Considering Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate, Review, or Other Appropriate Writ" are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk, of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Richard E. Shreves personally.