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 of Corrections 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 

points out that he is not serving any sentence imposed in Montana, and he reiterates that he 

is not a Montana State inmate "per se." Ball provides a copy of the Agreement between 

the State of Montana 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 of mandate. 

The Department points to the general rule, where a party must make a prima facie showing 

of entitlement to the performance of a clear legal duty of a ministerial act and that no speedy 

and adequate legal remedy is available. Sections 27-26-102(1) and (2), MCA; Smith v. 

Cnty. of Missoula, 1999 MT 330, ¶ 28, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834. The Department 

explains that Ba11 is a prisoner of the Commonwealth of Virginia 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 under the law. The Department provides a copy of the operational policy 

for classification as well as the forms for an inmate's appeal of a 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 of mandamus is 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. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Reginakikll personally. 

DATED this 1 day of April, 2023. 

2 
9.4 Pi 

• 

;2 410.......... 

Justices 

3 

e,.___.. 

•