Stack v. Utah Board of Pardons

Utah Supreme Court

Stack v. Utah Board of Pardons

1999 UT 76, 987 P.2d 593, 376 Utah Adv. Rep. 8, 1999 Utah LEXIS 113, 1999 WL 638649

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 24, 1999

DocketNo. 971666

StatusPublished

This text of 1999 UT 76 (Stack v. Utah Board of Pardons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stack v. Utah Board of Pardons, 1999 UT 76, 987 P.2d 593, 376 Utah Adv. Rep. 8, 1999 Utah LEXIS 113, 1999 WL 638649 (Utah 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

HOWE, Chief Justice:

¶ 1 Petitioner Brian K. Stack filed a pro se petition for extraordinary relief in the Sixth District Court against respondents, the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole and the warden of the Utah State Prison. The district court viewed the petition as a(l) challenge to his conviction and (2) complaint of the Board’s treatment of him. Stack moved to amend his petition to make clear his intent not to challenge his conviction, but the district court denied that motion. The district court then denied with prejudice his petition insofar as it attacked his conviction, and transferred the balance of the petition to the Third District Court, which is the proper venue for seeking relief from the Board. Stack now seeks review of the District Court’s denial of his motion to amend.

¶ 2 We agree with Stack that he should have been allowed to amend his petition to make clear his intent and objective in his pro [594]*594se petition. Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a). We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal with prejudice as to that part of his petition that could be construed as an attack on his conviction. Instead, we dismiss that part without prejudice.

¶3 We affirm the transfer to the Third District Court of that part of Stack’s petition that seeks relief against the Board of Pardons and Parole.

¶ 4 Associate Chief Justice DURHAM, Justice STEWART, Justice ZIMMERMAN, and Justice RUSSON concur in Chief Justice HOWE’s opinion.

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

HOWE, Chief Justice:

¶ 1 Petitioner Brian K. Stack filed a pro se petition for extraordinary relief in the Sixth District Court against respondents, the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole and the warden of the Utah State Prison. The district court viewed the petition as a(l) challenge to his conviction and (2) complaint of the Board’s treatment of him. Stack moved to amend his petition to make clear his intent not to challenge his conviction, but the district court denied that motion. The district court then denied with prejudice his petition insofar as it attacked his conviction, and transferred the balance of the petition to the Third District Court, which is the proper venue for seeking relief from the Board. Stack now seeks review of the District Court’s denial of his motion to amend.

¶ 2 We agree with Stack that he should have been allowed to amend his petition to make clear his intent and objective in his pro [594]*594se petition. Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a). We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal with prejudice as to that part of his petition that could be construed as an attack on his conviction. Instead, we dismiss that part without prejudice.

¶3 We affirm the transfer to the Third District Court of that part of Stack’s petition that seeks relief against the Board of Pardons and Parole.

¶ 4 Associate Chief Justice DURHAM, Justice STEWART, Justice ZIMMERMAN, and Justice RUSSON concur in Chief Justice HOWE’s opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 UT 76, 987 P.2d 593, 376 Utah Adv. Rep. 8, 1999 Utah LEXIS 113, 1999 WL 638649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stack-v-utah-board-of-pardons-utah-1999.