Court Opinion

ID: 9907240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 23:06:29.364796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:55.521489
License: Public Domain

12/05/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 23-0680

                                       OP 23-0680

 D'WAYNE ROSCHELL BAILEY,

              Petitioner,
       v.
                                                                       ORDER
 BRIAN GOOTKIN, AND NINETEENTH
 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
 HONORABLE MATTHEW CUFFE,
                                                                  FILED
                                                                   DEC 5 2023
              Respondents.                                       Bowen Greenwood
                                                               Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                  State+ of Montana

       D'Wayne Roschell Bailey moves this Court "to take supervisory control" over the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County. We deem his pleading a petition for a

writ of supervisory control, M. R. App. P. 14(3), and amend the caption to include the
District Court and presiding Judge. M. R. App. P. 14(6).

       Bailey is serving a forty-five-year prison sentence, imposed in June 2005. His

pleading is not clear. It appears that Bailey is requesting this Court to intervene in his

attempt to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County District Court
because the court has not filed it or has not taken the filing under consideration. Bailey

also includes a letter to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, questioning why

documents were returned to him. This may be because Bailey's pleading, including the

certificate of service, is deficient. He wrote the name of the Attomey General, but he did
not provide an address. It appears he failed to serve the District Court Judge, as required
for a petition for supervisory control. M. R. App. P. 14(6).

       Bailey also claims he is not being provided with documents from his prior criminal
cases. However, he cannot obtain documents by way of a motion after his cases are
completed. There is no "live" action to entertain his motions. Bailey's efforts to compel

discovery and to produce documents are not the proper method. Bailey may receive copies

of documents upon request and payment to the Clerk of District Court.1

       Supervisory control operates on a case-by-case basis. "This extraordinary remedy

can be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency

factors make the normal appeal process inadequate." State v. Spady, 2015 MT 218, ¶ 11,

380 Mont. 179, 354 P.3d 590 (citing M. R. App. P. 14(3); Redding v. McCarter, 2012 MT

144, ¶ 17, 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189). The case must meet one of three additional

criteria. Spady, ¶ 11; M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c).

       Bailey's motion fails to establish jurisdiction for this original proceeding. M. R.

App. P. 14(3). There is no pending proceeding in District Court, and Bailey has not met

any of the criteria. We secured a copy of the District Court's docket sheet. The most recent

filing occurred on October 26, 2018, when the District Court denied Bailey's Motion for a

Temporary Restraining Order. Bailey's underlying criminal case has been closed since

that date. There is no matter in the District Court over which to take supervisory control.

M. R. App. P. 14(3) and 14(6). Accordingly,

       IT IS ORDERED that Bailey's Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is

DENIED and DISMISSED.

       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Matthew

Cuffe, District Court Judge; Tricia Brooks, Clerk of District Court, Lincoln County, under

'In 2016, we denied Bailey's request for mandamus against two district courts wherein he sought
to compel production of documents in his criminal and civil cases. We explained to him that he
may purchase copies of documents from a court record under Montana law and that while he may
be indigent, he still must pay for those copies, pursuant to § 25-10-404(1), MCA. Bailey v.
Nineteenth Judicial Dist. Ct. and Third Judicial Dist. Ct., No. OP 16-0486, Order denying writ
(Mont. Aug. 30, 2016).

                                              2
Cause No. DC-04-89; Brian Gootkin, Department of Corrections Director; counsel of

record, and D"Wayne Roschell Bailey along with a copy of M. R. App. P. 14.

      DATED this        *aay of December, 2023.

                                                           Chief Justice

                                          3