George v. State Board of Correction

Idaho Supreme Court

George v. State Board of Correction

566 P.2d 1110, 98 Idaho 452, 1977 Ida. LEXIS 404

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedMay 25, 1977

DocketNo. 12285

StatusPublished

This text of 566 P.2d 1110 (George v. State Board of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George v. State Board of Correction, 566 P.2d 1110, 98 Idaho 452, 1977 Ida. LEXIS 404 (Idaho 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Thomas George and Carl Bowles, together with one James Cherniwchan, filed a pro se petition in the district court denominated “habeas corpus complaint” seeking redress of certain alleged grievances and deprivation of their rights at the Idaho State Penitentiary. The district court dismissed the action denying the request for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that “a writ of habeas corpus is an individual remedy not designed for multiple petitioners.” Appellants, who are here represented by counsel, have appealed from that order.

At oral argument the state has suggested that the appeal has become moot because the three petitioners have since been released from the Idaho State Penitentiary and may now be incarcerated in other state or federal penal institutions.

We have reviewed the record, briefs of the parties and argument, and conclude that the request for relief contained in the petitioners’ complaint should not have been denied solely on the ground that more than one petitioner had joined in the complaint. See Rule 21,1.R.C.P. The cause is remanded to the district court to determine whether or not the matter is moot, and if not, to reconsider the complaint consistent with this opinion.

Since the appellants are now represented by counsel, the district court may direct counsel to file an amended complaint and if the interests of justice dictate, may sever the claims of the various petitioners. See Rule 20(b), Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Thomas George and Carl Bowles, together with one James Cherniwchan, filed a pro se petition in the district court denominated “habeas corpus complaint” seeking redress of certain alleged grievances and deprivation of their rights at the Idaho State Penitentiary. The district court dismissed the action denying the request for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that “a writ of habeas corpus is an individual remedy not designed for multiple petitioners.” Appellants, who are here represented by counsel, have appealed from that order.

At oral argument the state has suggested that the appeal has become moot because the three petitioners have since been released from the Idaho State Penitentiary and may now be incarcerated in other state or federal penal institutions.

We have reviewed the record, briefs of the parties and argument, and conclude that the request for relief contained in the petitioners’ complaint should not have been denied solely on the ground that more than one petitioner had joined in the complaint. See Rule 21,1.R.C.P. The cause is remanded to the district court to determine whether or not the matter is moot, and if not, to reconsider the complaint consistent with this opinion.

Since the appellants are now represented by counsel, the district court may direct counsel to file an amended complaint and if the interests of justice dictate, may sever the claims of the various petitioners. See Rule 20(b), Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 P.2d 1110, 98 Idaho 452, 1977 Ida. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-state-board-of-correction-idaho-1977.