Court Opinion

ID: 9740159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:29:04.659623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:16.551682
License: Public Domain

*74SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 31. (concurring). The majority declines the opportunity presented by this case to decide whether a writ of habeas corpus may ever constitute the proper remedy for a claim that a prisoner's constitutional rights have been abridged by conditions of confinement. The majority concludes that the petitioner's claims can be adequately addressed by a certiorari action and therefore it need not reach the issue of habeas corpus.
¶ 32. I write separately because I am concerned that the adequacy of relief under a writ of certiorari is an illusion in this case.
¶ 33. The petitioner's claim is premised on the fact that he has affidavits from witnesses who withdrew their accusations against him after the adjustment committee made its decision. A court will thus be able to determine whether the defendant's constitutional rights were violated only if it considers the affidavits of these witnesses. As the majority admits, however, a certiorari court can consider these affidavits only "indirectly," if it finds that the ICE did not act according to law or that its actions were unreasonable when it rejected the petitioner's complaint for untimeliness in the face of these affidavits.1
¶ 34. In addition, the petitioner's certiorari action need be heard only if it was timely filed. There is a factual dispute in the present case regarding whether the petitioner mailed his completed petition for "certio-rari" before August 5, 2001. The majority puts the burden on the petitioner to provide evidence that he put his petition in the prison mailbox system prior to *75August 5, 2000, indicating that an affidavit or other evidentiary submission "might be acceptable."2
¶ 35. These two hurdles are not insignificant for the petitioner and raise questions about the adequacy of certiorari as an avenue for relief in this case.
¶ 36. For the foregoing reasons, I write separately.

 Majority op., ¶ 24.

 Majority op., ¶ 29.