# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 23-0139
REGINALD BALL,

Petitioner,

v. BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, and CARLEEN GREEN, Contracts Manager, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents. 

### VIR 1 8 2°23
Bow' f1 C ;-- .,,rt

.... ORDER

Representing himself, Reginald Ball has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, contending that the Montana Department of Corrections (the Department or DOC), its Director, and its Contract Manager have not performed their lawful duties, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact between the State of Montana and the State of Virginia (hereinafter Compact). Counsel for the Montana Department ofCorrections responds that Ball's Petition should be denied because Ball has not met the criteria for a writ to issue. Ball claims discrimination based on his status as an inmate under the Compact. He pointsout that he isnot serving any sentence imposed in Montana, and hereiteratesthat he is not a Montana State inmate "per se." Ball provides a copy ofthe Agreement between the State ofMontana and the State of Virginia (Agreement). Ball requests that the State "honor the [A]greement" to ensure that he receives equal treatment opportunities "to rehabilitate while [housed] in their custody and care . . . ." In its response, the Department asserts that Ball is not entitled to a writ ofmandate. The Department points tothe general rule, where a party must make a prima facie showing ofentitlementto theperformanceofa clearlegal duty ofaministerial act andthat nospeedy and adequate legal remedy is available. Sections 27-26-102(1) and (2), MCA; Smith v. Cnty. ofMissoula, 1999 MT 330, ¶ 28, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834. The Department explains that Ba11 is a prisoner of the Commonwealth ofVirginia and that the Montana 04/18/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0139

### State Prison received him on August 24, 2021, pursuant to the Compact. The Department

further explains that the Agreement grants Montana, as a receiving state, the right to exercise its discretion, when classifying or reclassifying an inmate, offering treatment programs, providing vocational education, and assigning inmate jobs. The Department asserts that Ball may appeal any placement decision and therefore has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy underthe law. TheDepartment provides a copy ofthe operational policy for classification aswell as the forms foran inmate's appeal ofa classification action. The Department asserts that Ball has not established a prima facie case under M. R. App. P. 14(5). As the Department notes, Ba11 has a present administrative remedy: the right to appeal the prison's decisions regarding an inmate's custody level, education, work assignments, and treatment. Ball fails to acknowledge this remedy, much less address its speed and adequacy. A writ ofmandamusis not a substitute for alternative remedies. Ball has not demonstrated entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Section 27-26-102(1), MCA; Smith, ¶28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Ball's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED and DISMISSED. TheClerkofthe SupremeCourt isdirectedtoprovideacopy ofthisOrdertocounsel ofrecord and to Reginakikll personally. DATED this 1 day ofApril, 2023.

2

# 9.4Pi •

;2 410..

........ Justices

3 

# e ,.___.. •