No. 13815 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF E'IONTANA 1968

GARY L. QUIGG and MICHAEL B. REINHARDT, et al., Petitioners,

ROGER W. CRIST, Warden of the Montana State Prison, James Blodgett, Deputy Warden, GARY WEER, Associate Warden, et al., Responents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:

Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Byron W. Boggs, Drummond,Montana For Respondents: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General,Helena, Montana James Masar, County Attorney, Deer Lodge,Montana Submitted on briefs

Submitted: January 5, 1978 Decided:

ClerkMr. JusticeJohn C. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court:
Petitioners Gary L. Quigg and Michael B. Reinhardt filed a

lt~~~~~~~~ FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR RELIEF: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT" before this Court May 

### 11, 1977. By order dated the same day, this Court directed that the cause be forwarded tothe District Court, Powell County, for an evidentiary hearing, and upon completion, to forward a copy of the disposition tothis Court. The District Court held a hearing June 30, 1977, and entered its findings and conclusions September 13, 1977. This Court notified the parties by order dated November 

### 4, 1977, to submit briefs with regard to the findings and conclusions. Counsel forpetitioners and respondent have each filed
a memorandum inaccord with such order. We firstnote that even under the broad relief requested, this petition does not come within any of the standards for extraordinary relief. Petitioners have failed to submit a transcript of the proceedings in the District Court for this Court todetermine whether the findings and conclusions of the District Court arecorrect. The facts alleged forhabeas corpus relief as taken from the briefs of the two petitioners are: 1.QUIGG. Petitioner Quigg apparently got intotroublewhen he was ordered tomove from the old prison facility to the new prison. He refused tomove because his friendswere inthe old prison. Quigg was transported and when he refused tomove into his assigned quarters he was taken tomaximum security untilhe agreed tomove in. He was inmaximum security from March 21 toMarch 30, 1977, atwhich time he agreed tomove in. Atthat time a hearing was held with regard tohisviolation of prison rules, he was found guilty, and the time he served was considered the punishment. Quigg allegeshe was deprived of his right toa hearing under the prison rules, and alsohe was deprived of medical attention and certain personal supplies during his confinement inmaximum security. Quigg alleges he was nervous and tense and unable toeat atthat time. Respondent states that prison personnel denied these contentions and gave him a hearing as soon ashe agreed tocomply with prison rules and move in. The District Court found that any deprivation "was caused by Quigg's own actions and was atmost
a temporary situation." Quigg complains that he was not allowed to callwitnesses
on hisbehalf atthe hearing or to consult with a "lay advisor" and that the delay in the hearing violates prison regulations. He asks this Court toamend the District Court's findings to say that Quigg's confinement was unlawful as a violation of due process and cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently, prison officicals did lose Quigg's personal property inthe move and the District Court ordered thathebe reimbursed $100. Neither Quigg nor the prison officials dispute thispart of the order. 2. REINHARDT. Reinhardt was placed inmaximum security for having his 

# pir

too long and not braided according toprison regulations. The District Court found thathe was warned beforehand, properly charged, found guilty of thisviolation, and his complaint had no merit.

### The gist of petitioners' complaint seems to be directed to the violations of prison regulationsand the fact theywere placed inmaximum security due to violations of those regulations. They served their timebefore the hearing in the matter. Quigg hasbeen paroled to attend the University ofMontana. We find the petitions moot and deny them.

We Concur: