QUIGG REINHARDT v CRIST
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13815 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF E'IONTANA 1968 GARY L. QUIGG and MICHAEL B. REINHARDT, et al., Petitioners, ROGER W. CRIST, Warden of the Montana State Prison, James Blodgett, Deputy Warden, GARY WEER, Associate Warden, et al., Responents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Byron W. Boggs, Drummond, Montana For Respondents: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana James Masar, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Montana Submitted on briefs Submitted: January 5, 1978 Decided : Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John C. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: P e t i t i o n e r s Gary L. Quigg and Michael B. Reinhardt f i l e d a l t FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS~ OR OTHER~ APPROPRIATE WRIT ~ ~ ~ ~ OR RELIEF: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT" before t h i s Court May 11, 1977. By order dated t h e same day, t h i s Court d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e cause be forwarded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Powell County, f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing, and upon completion, t o forward a copy of t h e d i s p o s i t i o n t o t h i s Court. The D i s t r i c t Court h e l d a hearing June 30, 1977, and entered i t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions September 13, 1977. This Court n o t i f i e d t h e p a r t i e s by o r d e r dated November 4 , 1977, t o submit b r i e f s with regard t o t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions. Counsel f o r p e t i t i o n e r s and respondent have each f i l e d a memorandum i n accord with such order. W f i r s t note t h a t even under t h e broad r e l i e f requested, e t h i s p e t i t i o n does not come within any of t h e standards f o r extraordinary r e l i e f . P e t i t i o n e r s have f a i l e d t o submit a t r a n s - c r i p t of t h e proceedings i n the D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h i s Court t o determine whether t h e findings and conclusions of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e c o r r e c t . The f a c t s a l l e g e d f o r habeas corpus r e l i e f a s taken from t h e b r i e f s of t h e two p e t i t i o n e r s a r e : 1.QUIGG. P e t i t i o n e r Quigg apparently g o t i n t o t r o u b l e when he was ordered t o move from t h e o l d p r i s o n f a c i l i t y t o t h e new prison. H e refused t o move because h i s f r i e n d s were i n t h e o l d prison. Quigg was transported and when he refused t o move i n t o h i s assigned q u a r t e r s he was taken t o maximum s e c u r i t y u n t i l he agreed t o move i n . He was i n maximum s e c u r i t y from March 21 t o ~ March 30, 1977, a t which time he agreed t o move i n . A t that time a hearing was held with regard t o h i s v i o l a t i o n of p r i s o n r u l e s , he was found g u i l t y , and t h e time he served was considered t h e punishment. Quigg a l l e g e s he was deprived of h i s r i g h t t o a hearing under t h e p r i s o n r u l e s , and a l s o he was deprived of medical a t t e n t i o n and c e r t a i n personal s u p p l i e s during h i s confinement i n maximum s e c u r i t y . Quigg a l l e g e s he was nervous and tense and unable t o e a t a t t h a t time. Respondent s t a t e s t h a t prison personnel denied these contentions and gave him a hearing a s soon a s he agreed t o comply with p r i s o n r u l e s and move i n . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t any d e p r i v a t i o n "was caused by Quigg's own a c t i o n s and was a t most a temporary s i t u a t i o n . " Quigg complains t h a t he was n o t allowed t o c a l l witnesses on h i s behalf a t t h e hearing o r t o c o n s u l t with a "lay advisor" and t h a t t h e delay i n t h e hearing v i o l a t e s prison r e g u l a t i o n s . He asks t h i s Court t o amend the D i s t r i c t Court's f i n d i n g s t o say t h a t Quigg's confinement was unlawful a s a v i o l a t i o n of due process and c r u e l and unusual punishment. Apparently, p r i s o n o f f i c i c a l s d i d l o s e Quigg's personal property i n t h e move and t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h a t he be reimbursed $100. Neither Quigg nor t h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s d i s p u t e t h i s p a r t of t h e order. 2. REINHARDT. Reinhardt was placed i n maximum s e c u r i t y f o r pir having h i s too long and n o t braided according t o p r i s o n r e g u l a t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t he was warned beforehand, properly charged, found g u i l t y of t h i s v i o l a t i o n , and h i s complaint had no merit. The gist of petitioners' complaint seems to be directed to the violations of prison regulations and the fact they were placed in maximum security due to violations of those regulations. They served their time before the hearing in the matter. has been paroled to attend the University of Montana. We find the petitions moot and deny them. We Concur: Quigg
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
