Petitioner, 

v. 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS 

AND CLARK COUNTY, the HONORABLE 

MICHAEL F. MCMAHON, and CAPTAIN 

BRADLEY BRAGG, LEWIS & CLARK 

COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, 

Respondents. 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Self-represented Petitioner Bobby Francis Lowry has filed a petition for a writ of 

mandate with this Court, after seeking similar relief in the Lewis and Clark County District 

Court, "where his trials were taking place." We amend the caption to include the First 

Judicial District Court and the presiding Judge. See § 27-26-102(1), MCA. 

Lowry explains that several months ago, he accidentally broke his hearing aid—

needed for his severe hearing impairment. Lowry states that he has not received a 

replacement, even after requesting one. Lowry points to §§ 49-4-501, and 49-4-508, MCA, 

the statutes for interpreters in judicial proceedings for deaf persons. He claims he also has 

suffered ear infections and argues that he "must receive medical care for his disability and 

reasonable accommodation . . . ." 

A writ of mandate, or mandamus, is specific and statutorily driven. Sections 27-26-

101 through 27-26-403, MCA. To state a claim for rnandarnus, 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. 
y 

person" is "a person whose hearing is totally impaired or is so seriously impaired as to 

prohibit the person frorn understanding oral communications" or communicating spoken 

language. Section 49-4-502(2), MCA. Lowry is entitled to an interpreter only if he meets 

that statutory definition—a factual determination for the trial court. It is not clear frorn the 

materials Lowry has submitted that the District Court has considered or made findings 

whether Lowry qualifies for a court-appointed interpreter. Lowry presurnably has counsel 

in his criminal case to advocate for his rights, and he retains the right to appeal from any 

adverse judgment. 

Finally, to the extent the petition alleges inadequate medical care, a writ of mandate 

is not the appropriate civil rernedy. See Gates v. Missoula Cty. Comm'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 

262-63, 766 P.2d 884, 885 (1988) (holding that habeas corpus is not the correct remedy for 

constitutional claims, including lack of "adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, 

exercise, individual security, and a law library" and that "disputed factual issues should be 

directed to an appropriate district court, since it is not the role of this Court to function as 

primary fact-finder."). Again, Lowry's claims require factual development and 

deterrnination, not suitable in an original writ proceeding before this Court. Because 

conditions of confinement may be challenged in an ordinary civil rights action, Lowry has 

a plain and adequate remedy of filing a complaint in a state or federal district court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lowry's Petition for Writ of Mandate is 

DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy to: the Hon. Michael 

F. McMahon, District Court Judge; Angie Sparks, Clerk of District Court, Lewis and Clark 

County, under Cause Nos. DC-2021-178, DC-2021-398, and DC-2021-537; Captain 

Bradley Bragg, LCCDC; counsel of record; Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County 

2 
3