04/23/2024
DA 23-0359
Case Number: DA 23-0359
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2024 MT 85N
IN THE MATTER OF THE NAME
CHANGE OF TOM NICHOLS,
Petitioner and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and For the County of Powell, Cause No. DV-23-26
Honorable Ed McLean, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Tom Nichols, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
Lorraine Schneider, Staff Attorney, Montana Department of
Corrections, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 20, 2024
Decided: April 23, 2024
Filed:
ir--6‘A•-if
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Petitioner Thomas Nichols (“Nikki”) appeals a Third Judicial District Court order
denying her petition for a sealed-record name change (“Petition”). Nikki is currently
incarcerated at the Montana State Prison for committing sex crimes against children.
¶3 On appeal, Nikki argues the District Court erred in denying the Petition because an
open-record proceeding would risk her safety as an actively transitioning transgender
woman. The State argues that Nikki has failed to show probable cause and that the District
Court thus properly exercised its discretion in denying her Petition.
¶4 We affirm.
¶5 District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a petition for a sealed-record
name change. Section 27-31-201, MCA, provides: “The court may allow a petition to
proceed on a sealed-record basis when probable cause is shown that the safety of the
petitioner is at risk and the judge is satisfied that the petitioner is not attempting to avoid
debt or to hide a criminal record.” (Emphasis added.) Further, a district court “may make
an order changing the name or dismissing the applications, as to the court or judge may
seem right and proper.” Section 27-31-204, MCA (emphasis added).
2
¶6 We will only reverse a district court decision for an abuse of discretion if the
decision is arbitrary or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice.
State v. Hansen, 2022 MT 163, ¶ 10, 409 Mont. 495, 515 P.3d 799.
¶7 As cause for her Petition, Nikki alleges she has been harassed and abused while
incarcerated as a direct result of her gender identity. By proceeding with a name change
on an open record, Nikki fears she would be subject to additional abuse and harassment.
She also notes a risk from specific family members who allegedly abused her in the past.
¶8 Other than to describe past harassment and abuse generally, Nikki does not identify
or provide context for specific instances of abuse. Nikki has been living openly as a
transgender woman at the MSP for roughly two years. Prison staff and inmates recognize
her as a woman and refer to her as Nikki. Nikki has not explained why an open-record
proceeding would change her circumstances at MSP, nor has she provided any support for
the alleged risk of harm from members of the public.
¶9 On the record before us, we are not convinced that the District Court abused its
discretion when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support Nikki’s Petition.
Hansen, ¶ 10.
¶10 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
¶11 Affirmed.
3
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
4