Holfeltz v. Duchesne County

----ooOoo----

Roger Lee Holfeltz,
Petitioner,

v.

Duchesne County Board of Commissioners, a bifurcated corporation,
(namely Larry A. Ross, Franklin Theodore Kappen,
and Guy R. Thane, collectively, individually, and in alter ego),
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000096-CA

F I L E D
July 27, 2001 2001 UT App 230 -----

Eighth District, Duchesne Department
The Honorable A. Lynn Payne

Attorneys:
Roger Lee Holfeltz, Altonah, Petitioner Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Orme, and Thorne.

ORME, Judge:

We have determined that "[t]he facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3).

The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure require that petitions for extraordinary relief, including writs of habeas corpus, only be granted "[w]here no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available." Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(a).

Petitioner's complaint appears to allege that two Duchesne County ordinances are unconstitutional. While other "plain, speedy and adequate remed[ies]" may also be available, it is clear that a declaratory judgment action was one such remedy available to petitioner.(1) See Utah Code Ann. § 78-33-2 (1996); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Emery County, 702 P.2d 121, 122 (Utah 1985) (declaratory judgment action brought to challenge constitutionality of county ordinance). Because petitioner has failed to exhaust other adequate remedies available at law, he is not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Johnson v. State, 945 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1997).

Affirmed.
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge

1. Utah courts have generally required that the following conditions exist before a declaratory judgment action can be maintained: "(1) a justiciable controversy; (2) the interests of the parties must be adverse; (3) the party seeking such relief must have a legally protectible interest in the controversy; and (4) the issues between the parties involved must be ripe for judicial determination." Baird v. State, 574 P.2d 713, 715 (Utah 1978). Nothing in his petition suggests any inability on petitioner's part to satisfy these conditions.