R. Ball. v. Gootkin

Montana Supreme Court

R. Ball. v. Gootkin

DecidedMarch 8, 2023

DocketOP 23-0139

StatusUnpublished

This text of R. Ball. v. Gootkin (R. Ball. v. Gootkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. Ball. v. Gootkin, (Mo. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

03/08/2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: OP 23-0139

OP 23-0139 FILED REGINALD BALL, MAR 0 7 2n23 Bow-,n C 1, -..anwr Petitioner, Clerk of Supreme State of montan Court e

v. ORDER BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, and CARLEEN GREEN, Contracts Manager, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

Reginald Ball has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, alleging that the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), its Director, and its Contract Manager have not performed their lawful duties, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact between the State of Montana and the State of Virginia. He includes a copy of the Agreement. Upon review, we deem it appropriate to require a response to Ball's Petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, and serve a written response to the petition for a writ of mandate together with appropriate documentary exhibits. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Attorney General; to counsel for the Department of Corrections; arid to Petitioner personally. DATED this Vi;' day of March, 2023.

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

03/08/2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: OP 23-0139

OP 23-0139 FILED REGINALD BALL, MAR 0 7 2n23 Bow-,n C 1, -..anwr Petitioner, Clerk of Supreme State of montan Court e

v. ORDER BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, and CARLEEN GREEN, Contracts Manager, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

Reginald Ball has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, alleging that the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), its Director, and its Contract Manager have not performed their lawful duties, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact between the State of Montana and the State of Virginia. He includes a copy of the Agreement. Upon review, we deem it appropriate to require a response to Ball's Petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, and serve a written response to the petition for a writ of mandate together with appropriate documentary exhibits. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Attorney General; to counsel for the Department of Corrections; arid to Petitioner personally. DATED this Vi;' day of March, 2023.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

R. Ball. v. Gootkin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-ball-v-gootkin-mont-2023.