Case Title: Rust v. Gunter

Citation: 228 Neb. 141, 421 N.W.2d 458

Docket Number: 

State: nebraska

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Date: 1988-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
421 N.W.2d 458 (1988) 228 Neb. 141 John E. RUST, Appellant, v. Frank O. GUNTER, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, et al., Appellees. No. 87-662. Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 1, 1988. *459 John E. Rust, pro se. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Susan M. Ugai, Lincoln, for appellees. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. PER CURIAM. John E. Rust was convicted of first degree murder and three counts of shooting with intent to wound, maim, or kill. Rust was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and imprisonment for three concurrent terms of 16 2/3 years to 50 years on the shooting convictions. Rust's convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal to this court. State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528, 250 N.W.2d 867 (1977). On April 20, 1987, in the district court for Lancaster County, Rust filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Rust did not claim that his sentences to death and imprisonment were invalid; rather, he claimed that rule 6(16), ch. 4, of the rules of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services imposes ex post facto punishment concerning the crimes for which Rust is convicted. Rust alleges that none of the sentences imposed, for the murder conviction or the shooting convictions, contained a provision for solitary confinement. However, rule 6(16), adopted after imposition of sentences on Rust and during his incarceration in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex to serve those sentences, authorizes solitary confinement of those awaiting the death penalty. Rust argues that such solitary confinement or administrative segregation is a punishment applied retrospectively and is, therefore, a violation of the constitutional prohibition against an ex post facto law, see, Neb. Const. art. I, § 16, and U.S. Const. art. I, § 10; a violation of the double jeopardy clause, see, Neb. Const. art. I, § 12, and U.S. Const. amends. V and XIV; and a violation of the separation of powers. The State filed a motion to quash Rust's petition, alleging that Rust was challenging the conditions of his confinement, which is not a proper function of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court made the following determination: "Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement by petition for habeas corpus. This cannot be successfully done in the State of Nebraska." Thereupon, the district court dismissed Rust's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Rust's petition relates to conditions of his confinement while incarcerated at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex under the control of the Department of Correctional Services. Rule 6(16), questioned by Rust, pertains to the manner of his confinement as one convicted of first degree murder and awaiting the death penalty. Hawk v. Olson, 146 Neb. 875, 880, 22 N.W.2d 136, 139 (1946). *460 The availability of habeas corpus in Nebraska is restricted.... Piercy v. Parratt, 202 Neb. 102, 105-06, 273 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1979). Although Rust suggests that the Department of Correctional Services does not have the authority to make regulations concerning solitary confinement of inmates at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, in Board of Regents v. County of Lancaster, 154 Neb. 398, 403, 48 N.W.2d 221, 224 (1951), this court stated: In Pruitt v. Parratt, 197 Neb. 854, 856, 251 N.W.2d 179, 181 (1977), we stated: See, also, Anderson and Hochstein v. Gunter, 226 Neb. 724, 414 N.W.2d 281 (1987). Whatever Rust may view as incorrect about the conditions of his confinement, his complaints under the circumstances are inappropriate subject matter for a petition and proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.