Court Opinion

ID: 9962896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 23:06:03.709261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:42.634070
License: Public Domain

04/23/2024

                                     DA 23-0359
                                                                                 Case Number: DA 23-0359

         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                     2024 MT 85N

IN THE MATTER OF THE NAME
CHANGE OF TOM NICHOLS,

         Petitioner and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:     District Court of the Third Judicial District,
                 In and For the County of Powell, Cause No. DV-23-26
                 Honorable Ed McLean, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

          For Appellant:

                 Tom Nichols, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana

          For Appellee:

                 Lorraine Schneider, Staff Attorney, Montana Department of
                 Corrections, Helena, Montana

                                             Submitted on Briefs: March 20, 2024

                                                       Decided: April 23, 2024

Filed:
                              ir--6‘A•-if
                 __________________________________________
                                  Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2     Petitioner Thomas Nichols (“Nikki”) appeals a Third Judicial District Court order

denying her petition for a sealed-record name change (“Petition”). Nikki is currently

incarcerated at the Montana State Prison for committing sex crimes against children.

¶3     On appeal, Nikki argues the District Court erred in denying the Petition because an

open-record proceeding would risk her safety as an actively transitioning transgender

woman. The State argues that Nikki has failed to show probable cause and that the District

Court thus properly exercised its discretion in denying her Petition.

¶4     We affirm.

¶5     District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a petition for a sealed-record

name change. Section 27-31-201, MCA, provides: “The court may allow a petition to

proceed on a sealed-record basis when probable cause is shown that the safety of the

petitioner is at risk and the judge is satisfied that the petitioner is not attempting to avoid

debt or to hide a criminal record.” (Emphasis added.) Further, a district court “may make

an order changing the name or dismissing the applications, as to the court or judge may

seem right and proper.” Section 27-31-204, MCA (emphasis added).

                                              2
¶6     We will only reverse a district court decision for an abuse of discretion if the

decision is arbitrary or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice.

State v. Hansen, 2022 MT 163, ¶ 10, 409 Mont. 495, 515 P.3d 799.

¶7     As cause for her Petition, Nikki alleges she has been harassed and abused while

incarcerated as a direct result of her gender identity. By proceeding with a name change

on an open record, Nikki fears she would be subject to additional abuse and harassment.

She also notes a risk from specific family members who allegedly abused her in the past.

¶8     Other than to describe past harassment and abuse generally, Nikki does not identify

or provide context for specific instances of abuse. Nikki has been living openly as a

transgender woman at the MSP for roughly two years. Prison staff and inmates recognize

her as a woman and refer to her as Nikki. Nikki has not explained why an open-record

proceeding would change her circumstances at MSP, nor has she provided any support for

the alleged risk of harm from members of the public.

¶9     On the record before us, we are not convinced that the District Court abused its

discretion when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support Nikki’s Petition.

Hansen, ¶ 10.

¶10    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

¶11    Affirmed.

                                             3
                              /S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

                          4