WASHINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

WASHINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
2002 OK CR 25
49 P.3d 754
Case Number: HC-2002-0292
Decided: 06/12/2002

[49 P.3d 54]

ORDER GRANTING EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND
REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT

¶1 On March 19, 2002, Petitioner, pro se, filed an application to overturn the sanctions imposed by the District Court of Hughes County in District Court Case No. CV-01-227. Petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of Hughes County challenging his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter in the District Court of Osage County, District Court Case No. CF-90-209. The State requested sanctions be imposed based upon a showing that Petitioner litigated the same issues repeatedly in state and federal courts and had filed "numerous other actions asserting a variety of claims all similarly baseless and frivolous".

¶2 Petitioner filed an objection to the State's motion for sanctions in the District Court of Hughes County. The Honorable George M. Butner, District Judge, found Petitioner did "not dispute his litigious history or the fact that the issues raised had been previously litigated in the courts". Judge Butner found Petitioner's objection "patently frivolous and evidence [of] yet another attempt to trifle with the courts".

¶3 Citing Section

¶4 We agree with the District Court that sanctions in this matter are appropriate. However, we find the sanctions that have been imposed inappropriate and without authority to enforce. These sanctions infringe upon the administration of the prison system which has been delegated to the Executive Branch and not to the courts. The management and running of our prisons is a function of the executive branch of government. Fields v. Driesel,

¶5 In Taylor v. State,

¶6 Sanctions must be designed to fit the specific facts of the case and to remedy the problem being addressed. Id. at ¶9. When the court's inherent power to impose sanctions is relied upon, and the court does not rely upon Section 566.2 of Title 57, reasonable and appropriate sanctions would be prepayment of all fees, dismissals and/or awards of costs. See Cotner v. Creek County District Court,

¶7 Therefore, the sanctions imposed by the District Court in this matter are VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for imposition of sanctions consistent with this Order.

¶8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶9 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 12th day of June, 2002.

 [49 P.3d 756]

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin, Concur in Results

ATTEST:

/s/ James Patterson