No. 13136
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1976
STATE e x re1 BUTTE YOUTH SERVICE
CENTER,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
MICHAEL A. MURRAY, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
OF SOUTHWESTERN M N A A DRUG PROGRAM, a n
OTN
AGENCY OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon 6 Robinson, B u t t e ,
Montana
Urban L. Roth a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
For Respondent:
S t i m a t z and Engel, B u t t e , Montana
Lawrence G. S t i m a t z a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted: May 27, 1976
Decided: JUL - 11976
Filed:
.I L) L 1 yTr5
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County, g r a n t e d p l a i n -
t i f f ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate. Defendant a p p e a l s from
t h e d e n i a l o f i t s motion t o quash t h e w r i t and f o r change of
venue.
P l a i n t i f f , B u t t e Youth S e r v i c e C e n t e r , i s a n o n p r o f i t
c o r p o r a t i o n p r o v i d i n g room, b o a r d , and t r e a t m e n t f o r i n d i v i d -
u a l s i n a s t a t e d r u g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program. Defendant i s
the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i r e c t o r o f / ~ o u t h w e s t e r n Montana Drug Program,
t h e s t a t e agency o p e r a t i n g t h e d r u g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program.
The Youth C e n t e r was t o r e c e i v e $7.50 p e r day p e r boy,
l a t e r r a i s e d t o $10.34 p e r boy, from t h e S o u t h w e s t e r n Montana
Drug Program under c o n t r a c t s t o p r o v i d e d r u g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n
services. The f u n d i n g was from a F e d e r a l g r a n t . Subsequently
t h e S o u t h w e s t e r n Montana Drug Program d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e Youth
C e n t e r was a l s o r e c e i v i n g a foster-home g r a n t , $4.00 p e r day
p e r boy, from S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s , a s t a t e a g e n c y ,
which i n t u r n was r e c e i v i n g ~ e d e r a l u n d i n g .
f A dispute arose
a s t o whether t h i s c o n s t i t u t e d an i l l e g a l d u p l i c a t i o n o f payment
of F e d e r a l f u n d s t o t h e Youth C e n t e r under F e d e r a l law.
The Youth C e n t e r r e s o l v e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h i s d i s p u t e
by r e q u e s t i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i r e c t o r o f t h e S o u t h w e s t e r n
Montana Drug Program t o a p p l y f o r a w a i v e r o f t h e F e d e r a l pro-
h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t payment of f u n d s by two F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s . When
he r e f u s e d , t h e Youth C e n t e r s o u g h t a w r i t of mandate command-
i n g him t o a p p l y f o r t h e w a i v e r p r o v i d e d i n 2 1 U.S.C. 5 1135,
e n t i t l e d " S i n g l e non-Federal s h a r e r e q u i r e m e n t s ; w a i v e r " , pro-
viding i n pertinent part:
"Where f u n d s a r e made a v a i l a b l e by more t h a n one
F e d e r a l agency t o be used by a n agency, o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
o r individual t o c a r r y o u t a drug abuse prevention
f u n c t i o n , a s i n g l e non-Federal s h a r e r e q u i r e m e n t may
be e s t a b l i s h e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o p o r t i o n of f u n d s
advanced by e a c h F e d e r a l agency, and t h e D i r e c t o r
may o r d e r any s u c h agency t o waive any t e c h n i c a l
g r a n t o r c o n t r a c t requirement e s t a b l i s h e d i n reg-
u l a t i o n s which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s i m i l a r re-
q u i r e m e n t of t h e o t h e r F e d e r a l agency o r which t h e
o t h e r F e d e r a l agency d o e s n o t impose." (Emphasis
added. )
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t command-
i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a c t o r show c a u s e f o r h i s r e f u s a l . Upon
r e c e i p t o f t h e w r i t , d e f e n d a n t moved, w i t h a b r i e f and a f f i d a v i t
i n support:
(1) t o q u a s h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandate;
( 2 ) t o q u a s h and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of
mandate; and
( 3 ) t o change venue t o L e w i s and C l a r k County.
A f t e r a n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n s , t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n s and i s s u e d a w r i t o f mandate. ~efendant
appeals.
The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e - (1) whether t h e w r i t s h o u l d
have been i s s u e d i a n d ( 2 ) whether venue w a s p r o p e r l y i n S i l v e r
Bow County o r Lewis and C l a r k County.
A w r i t of mandate may be i s s u e d t o compel t h e performance
of a n a c t which t h e law s p e c i a l l y e n j o i n s a s a d u t y . Section
93-9102, R.C.M. 1947. However, t h e Youth C e n t e r h a s n o t p r e s e n t -
ed any s t a t u t e o r r e g u l a t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e S t a t e d r u g program
t o apply f o r t h e waiver. Counsel f o r t h e Youth C e n t e r p o i n t s
t o g e n e r a l a s s u r a n c e s c o n t a i n e d i n c o n t r a c t s between t h e S t a t e
and F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s t h a t t h e p o l i c i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e
s u p e r i o r agency w i l l be f o l l o w e d under t h e c o n t r a c t s . Counsel
p o i n t s t o t h e s e a s s u r a n c e s , which are n o t i n e v i d e n c e and n o t a
p a r t of t h e r e c o r d , t o e s t a b l i s h a clear l e g a l d u t y on t h e p a r t
of t h e S t a t e Drug Program t o a p p l y f o r t h e w a i v e r .
Mandamus w i l l n o t l i e t o compel performance o f a d i s c r e -
tionary function. The Youth C e n t e r h a s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d a clear
l e g a l duty t o apply f o r t h e waiver requested.
F u r t h e r , i f t h e Youth C e n t e r i s r e l y i n g on a c o n t r a c t u a l
o b l i g a t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y , w e f a i l t o see why
i t d o e s n o t have a remedy a t law f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t o r i n
e q u i t y f o r s p e c i f i c performance. Q u o t i n g from t h e b r i e f f o r t h e
Youth C e n t e r ( a t p a g e 7 ) :
"Counsel f o r BYSC [ B u t t e Youth S e r v i c e s C e n t e r ]
r e c o g n i z e s and a c c e p t s t h e f a c t t h a t a W r i t o f
Mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy and i s
o b t a i n a b l e o n l y i n t h e s e r a r e cases w h e r e i n
t h e r e i s n o t a n y p l a i n , s p e e d y and a d e q u a t e
remedy i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f l a w , and t h e r e -
f o r e t h e a p p l i c a n t must d i s c l o s e t h e f a c t s which
establish his clear legal right t o the relief
sought. S t a t e e x r e l . Duggan v s . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
6 5 Mont. 1 9 7 , 1 9 9 , 210 P . 1 0 6 2 . "
Yet, c o u n s e l s i m p l y s t a t e s i n h i s b r i e f t h a t h e d o e s n o t have
a remedy on t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n o r p r o o f .
A c c o r d i n g l y , d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o q u a s h and d i s m i s s t h e
p e t i t i o n s h o u l d h a v e been g r a n t e d . Our r u l i n g on t h i s i s s u e r e n d e r s
r e v i e w o f t h e venue i s s u e u n n e c e s s a r y .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o
q u a s h and d i s m i s s i s r e v e r s e d . P l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n i s hereby
dismissed with prejudice.
-
Justice
W e concur:
B2rnard Thomas, D i s t r i c t
s i t t i n g i n place of M r .
C h i e f J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n .