380 P.3d 340
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Reginald Williams, a pro se inmate, filed a Rule 65B petition (extraordinary relief) and related claims against the Utah Department of Corrections and others; earlier appellate remand required the district court to rule on his motion to disqualify the Attorney General (AG).
- On remand the district court denied Williams’s disqualification motion, struck his first amended petition for including ordinary claims, and dismissed his second amended Rule 65B petition asserting ten causes of action under Rule 65B(d)(2).
- Williams’s claims included: denial of constitutionally mandated legal assistance by contract attorneys (denial of access to courts/Bounds theory); failure to put the Inmate Trust Fund Account (ITFA) out for bid; breach of confidentiality by the AG (motion to disqualify); and a request for appellate costs awarded by the court of appeals.
- The district court dismissed contract-attorney claims after finding Williams had returned blank intake forms and therefore had not shown entitlement to contract-attorney assistance or free photocopies; it also found no basis for conflict counsel.
- The court dismissed ITFA claims for lack of statutory or common-law duty to bid; denied Williams’s motion to disqualify the AG because the record did not show disclosure of privileged trial strategy or documents; and denied Williams’s bill of costs for failing to timely file an itemized, verified bill as required by the appellate mandate.
- Williams appealed the dismissals and denial of costs; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract-attorney denial of legal assistance / access to courts | Williams: contract attorneys refused to prepare initial pleadings, perform research, or provide case law; Bounds requires assistance. | Dept.: Contract attorneys must assist only if inmate provides factual info; rules limit assistance to initial pleadings for habeas or civil-rights claims challenging confinement. | Court: Dismissal affirmed — Williams returned blank forms and did not show entitlement to assistance under Bounds or agency rules. |
| Free photocopies and alternative counsel for claims against contract attorneys | Williams: entitled to free copies and alternative counsel to pursue complaints against contract attorneys. | Dept.: No entitlement absent showing of meritorious conflict; policy provides conflict counsel only after preliminary bar determination. | Court: Dismissal affirmed — no meritorious conflict shown; no right to free copies without meritorious underlying claim. |
| ITFA bidding claim | Williams: Department failed to put ITFA out for bid, violating internal procedures. | Dept.: No statutory or recognized common-law duty requiring bidding; internal procedures alone do not create Rule 65B duty. | Court: Dismissal affirmed — Williams failed to show a clear legal right or plain duty supporting extraordinary relief. |
| Motion to disqualify Attorney General for breach of confidentiality | Williams: AG had access to and disclosed privileged/confidential materials, requiring disqualification. | Dept./AG: Any retrieval/review resulted from inadvertent disclosure and followed policy; contract attorneys reviewed and found no privileged material; redacted copies were provided to Williams. | Court: Denial affirmed — record does not show disclosure of privileged trial strategy or taint to continued representation. |
| Bill of costs awarded on appeal | Williams: pro se status warrants leniency; he filed inmate statements and an amended calculation; delays partly due to photocopy access. | Dept.: Williams failed to timely file an itemized and verified bill as ordered by appellate court; filings untimely and insufficient. | Court: Denial affirmed — Williams did not provide the itemized, verified bill within the mandate; pro se status does not excuse noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (recognizing state must provide inmates tools for meaningful access to courts)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (limits Bounds to claims attacking sentence or conditions of confinement)
- Hogs R Us v. Town of Fairfield, 207 P.3d 1221 (Utah 2009) (Rule 65B standard: clear legal right and plain duty)
- Renn v. Board of Pardons & Parole, 904 P.2d 677 (Utah 1995) (mandamus/writ background and remedy)
- Garcia v. Jones, 510 P.2d 1099 (Utah) (mandamus standard quoted)
- Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 104 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2004) (court may consider documents central to claim when resolving a motion to dismiss)
- State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (pro se litigant standard: afforded consideration but held to bar standards)