Ziegler v. Miliken

583 P.2d 1175, 1978 Utah LEXIS 1374

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Decided: July 31, 1978
• Docket: 15533
• Status: Published

Opinions

CROCKETT, Justice:

Randy A. Ziegler, an inmate serving a sentence for burglary in the Utah State Prison, was placed in isolated confinement after engaging in an attempt to escape and making an assault upon a prison guard. He filed in district court a petition in habeas corpus¹ alleging cruel and unusual punishment in denying his constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and access to the library and to legal materials. Upon the basis of the representations made to the district court, it ruled that he had shown no grounds for relief, including that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. He appeals.

In considering his contentions, it is appropriate to have in mind the purpose and the scope of habeas corpus. Though its original purpose was to test the lawfulness of the cause of one’s restraint or imprisonment, or the propriety of proceedings relating thereto, it is not to be doubted that the understanding of the nature of the writ has been broadened to test other alleged violations of basic rights;² and that this would include cruel and unusual punishment,³ or anything that would properly fit within that charge.⁴

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to state a ground for relief, it must appear from such a petition, (1) that there is some such violation of a basic right; and (2) that the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies, before seeking relief from the courts.⁵ The reason for this is that, consistent with their obligation of exercising judicial restraint in keeping within their own function, the courts are reluctant to intrude into the operations or management of the internal affairs of the prison;⁶ and will do so only in an unusual exigency where it appears that there is a likelihood that some such oppression or injustice is occurring that it would be unconscionable not to examine into the alleged grievance.⁷

Applying what has been said above to the instant case, we perceive nothing to persuade us to disagree with the views adopted by the trial court that the matters complained of by the petitioner do not bring him within the principles herein-above stated. Neither the fact that he was placed in isolated confinement, nor the other alleged deprivations, constitute cruel or unusual punishment; and moreover, the petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedy by applying for relief to the Warden,⁸ or to the Board of Corrections, whose duty it would be to consider such complaints and put into effect any appropriate remedy.⁹

Affirmed. No costs awarded.

HALL, J., concurs.

1 . This proceeding is brought under Rule 65B(f), U.R.C.P.

2 . See 39 Am.Jur.2d, Habeas Corpus, Sec. 11, citing Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426; Weems v. U. S., 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793.

3 . Id., Amendment VIII, U.S.Const.; Art. I, Sec. 9, Utah Const.

4 . That even if the petition had merit, it would not be entitled to outright discharge, see Kuehnert v. Turner, 28 Utah 2d 150, 499 P.2d 839.

5 . Helm v. Utah State Highway Patrol Civil Service Comm., Utah, 556 P.2d 210 (1976); Smith v. Turner, 12 Utah 2d 66, 362 P.2d 581 (1961).

6 . Id., and see Rogers v. Warden, etc., 84 Nev. 539, 445 P.2d 28.

7 . See Chapman v. Graham, 2 Utah 2d 156, 270 P.2d 821; Cf. statement in Gallegos v. Turner, 17 Utah 2d 273, 409 P.2d 386.

8 . See Sec. 64-13-10, U.C.A., 1953.

9 . See Sec. 64-13-21, U.C.A., 1953.