NO. 88-401 

IN THE STTPRFME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1988 

JAY LEE GATES, AND MARK J. ANDRUS, 

Petitioners, 

-vsMISSOULA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DANIEL 

MAGONE, SHERIFF, DR. TjONG, CHISF OF 

MEDICAT, SERT'ICES, 

Respondents. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Petitioners: 

Jay Lee Gates, pro se, Deer Lodqe, Montana 

Mark J Andrus, pro se, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Robert Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, 

Montana; Michael W. Sehestedt, Deputv, Missoula 

Submitted on Briefs: Dec. 3, 1988 

Decided: December 29, 1988 

u c-' -- -- '. .. > -Y 

-+ Clerk , ' _? \ c-3 . -. 

-a- 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Jay Lee Gates and Mark Andrus petition this Court for 

relief under the habeas corpus and declaratory judgment 

statutes. They allege a violation of their constitutional 

rights due to several conditions of confinement at the 

Missoula County Jail. Petitioners also allege a tort cause 

of action against Missoula County officials for the violation 

of their constitutional rights. We dismiss the petitioners' 

claim for relief. 

The issues involved in this matter are: 

1. Is habeas corpus an appropriate remedy? 

2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider Petitioners' request for relief as a declaratory judgment or a 

tort cause of action? 

Both petitioners were incarcerated in the Missoula 

County Jail in Missoula, Montana, at the filing of this 

petition. Since that date, Mr. Gates has been transferred to 

Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge and Mr. Andrus' six month 

term in the Missoula County Jail beginning in April of 1988 

has presumably been served. During the periods of their 

incarceration in Missoula, the petitioners contend that they 

were denied adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, 

exercise, individual security, and a law library, all of 

which violated their constitutional rights under the 8th 

Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment, 

the similar prohibition in Article 11, Section 22 of the 

Montana Constitution, and also the 14th Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution. 

Is habeas corpus an appropriate remedy? 

The habeas corpus statute 5 46-22-101 (1) , MCA, provides 

that: 
. . . every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his liberty within this state may 

prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into 

the cause -- of such imprisonment andrestraint and, 

- if illegal, -- to be delivered therefrom. (Emphasis 

added. 

This statute allows a prisoner to challenge the legal 

sufficiency of the cause for incarceration. The petitioners 

do not allege that the cause of their incarceration is unlawful. We conclude that habeas corpus is not an appropriate 

remedy. 

I1 

Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's request for relief as a declaratory judgment or a tort 

cause of action? 

Petitioners seek declaratory and injunctive relief 

against Missoula County officials whom they contend have 

control over the care and condition of the facility in question. The Montana Supreme Court's power to hear any matter 

by exercising original jurisdiction is subiect to Rule 17 (al 

The supreme court is an appellate court but it 

is empowered by the constitution of Montana to hear 

and determine such original and remedial writs as 

may be necessary or proper to the complete exercise 

of its jurisdiction. The institution of such 

original proceedings in the supreme court is-sometimes justified by circumstance's of an emergency 

nature, as when a cause of action or a right has 

arisen under conditions making due consideration in 

the trial courts and due appeal to this court an 

inadequate remedy, or when supervision of a trial 

court other than by appeal. is deemed necessary or 

proper. 

In determining whether to assuHe original jurisdiction 

in 1.j.qht of that rule, this Court has considered several 
factors as set forth in State ex re1 Thompson v. School 

District (1970), 156 Mont. 79, 80, 474 P.2d 700, 701: 

" . . . various fact questions appear . . . original jurisdiction by this Court will not achieve a 

thorough examination into the multiple problems 

presented, and, further, a class action could be 

instituted in any appropriate district court wherein exists facilities for taking testimony and 

making findings of fact and conclusions of law 

which would be determinative of the fact questions 

now existing . . . " 

Mr. Gates and Mr. Andrus present a number of factual 

questions which they ask this Court to resolve. Those disputed factual issues should be directed to an appropriate 

district court, since it is not the role of this Court to 

function as primary factfinder. The petitioners have not 

demonstrated any emergency which would justify a departure 

from the usual proceedings in district court to decide the 

merits of the issues raised. Furthermore, the County points 

out that at the time this petition was filed, there was a 

class action pending in which the petitioners were involved, 

counsel was appointed, and the same issues were raised in 

that suit as appear in this matter. 

We conclude that there is no basis upon which this Court 

should accept jurisdiction. Petitioners' request for relief 

is denied and dismissed, without prejudice. 

I / CHi'ef Justice /I