09/10/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0450

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ILYA ICHMEELEV,
Petitioner, Cause No, OP -
v.

KYLE FOUTS, Montana State Hospital PETITION FOR WRIT OF

Administrator, MANDAMUS

And

ADAM MEIER, Director Department

of Health and Human Services,
Respondents.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

Greg Rapkoch Austin Knudsen

Office of the State Public Defender Montana Attorney General
Region 1 215 North Sanders
723 5th Ave. E, Suite 100 P.O, Box 201401
Kalispell, MT 59901 Helena, MT 599620
406-751-6080 / Fax: 406-751-6083 406-444-2026
Grapkochgmt. gov

1 PETITION FOR WESI OF MANDAMUS.

T. INTRODUCTION.

This case reflects the heart-wrenching realities of the mentally ill who are

warehoused in our criminal justice systern. Petitioner has been in the custody of the

Flathead County Detention Center (FCDC) for the majority of calendar year 2021.

Durhig that time, petitioner has not had, adequate mental health or medical treatment

despite two court orders committing petitioner to the Montana State Hospital (MSH)

for the purposes of evaluating and restoring bis fitness to proceed. The Department

of Health and Human Services (DPHHS) has simply refused to honor those orders

and has instead warehoused petitioner in FCDC.

Petitioner is currently a pretrial detainee in FCDC. Petitioner is being held OD

$500 bail for an allegation of Criminal Trespass to Property. Petitionor cannot

meaningfully communicate with defense counsel or engage in the process for

posting bail or reducing bail because petitioner suffers from acute schizophrenia.

Petitioner rarely eats, drinks, bathes, or communicates. Petitioner defecates and

urinates in his cell, often eating or drinking this excrement. Petitioner resides for

long stretches in solitary confinement. Jail staff cannot care for him.

After considering uncontroverted evidence, the Kalispell Municipal Court

found petitioner unfit to proceed and ordered the Montana State Hospital to admit

him within 48 hours or to show cause why it had not done so. The reason for this

order was petitioner's extreme mental illness, his rapidly deteriorating physicai

2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,

condition, and the complete inability of FCDC to care for his physical and mental

needs.

To the present date, DPHES has neither admitted petitioner to MSH (or any

other facility) n.or appeared to show cause wby it has not done so. In the meantime,

petitioner continues to deteriorate in th.e custody of FCDC. Accordingly, this petition

raises the following issues:

1. Is the DPHHS obligated to immediately admit petitioner to MSH

pursuant to the Kalispell Municipal Court's determination not only that
petitioner is unfit to proceed, but also that FCDC cannot meet
petitioner's medical and psychological needs such that petitioner's
physical condition is rapidly deteriorating?

IL FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

Petitioner's current situation is a culmination of multiple proceedings during

this calendar year. Part I1(A) details the dismissal entered for delay by DPHHS in

admitting petitioner for a fitness to proceed evaluation in a prior Flathead County

Justice Court proceeding. Part 11((B) details the current detention and delay by

DPETES in providing fitness to proceed restorative services in a Kalispell Municipal

Court proceeding.

A. Previous Proceedings Dismissed For Delay Tn Providing Fitness To

Proceed Evalua tion.

On February 5, 2021; petitioner was arrested and issued a citation for

Violation of a Protective Order. Petitioner was brought before the Flathead County

Justice Court for an initial appearance on February 9, and bail was set at $500. Appx.
3 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
1. Petitioner remained in the custody of FCDC because petitioner could not afford

bail.

On March. 30, petitioner's counsel moved for the petitioner's commitment to

MSH in two matters pending before the Justice Court for the purposes of evaluating

the petitioner's fitness to proceed. Appx. 2. The basis for this motion was that the

petitioner had been recently released from a psychiatric commitm.ent to MSH and

that the petitioner had been off of an extensive regimen of medications which were

meant to treat severe schizophrenia. Appx. 2. The motion also noted the severe

decompensation that petitioner had been experiencing at FCDC, and the admitted

inability of FCDC to care for petitioner's medical needs. Appx. 2. The motion was

unopposed.

On April 1, the Justice Court held an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's

motion for commitment to MSH. Appx. 3. At that hearing, the Justice Court h.eard

extensive testimony concerning petitioner's condition. That testhnony included the

following assessment from Commander Grande:

Petitioner had barely communicated since beginning his incarceration

on February 5, and that even communication with mental health

professionals was lacking. Appx. 3, at 9.

FCDC is not equipped to care for someone in petitioner's position. App.

3, at 10.

4 PETITION FOR WRIT OF SvlANDAMUS.

 Petitioner's condition was continually worsening. Appx. 3, at 10.

• That "in the last month, he hasn't changed his clothes. He s urinating

in his bed. He's defecating on the floor. He will not take food from us.

We, have to leave the food at his pass-through and walk away before

hell eat. This Morning he would not eat. He was more, the nurse said,

in like a catatonic state— like he s just stares off into nowhere." Appx.

2, at 10.

• FCDC cannot force Mr. Khmelev to take his medications. Appx. 2, at

10.

Next, defense counsel called the nurse who was treating petitioner at the jail. She

testified as follows:

• She has treated petitioner on numerous occasions. Appx, 3, at 11-12.

• MSH had recently discharged petiti.oner to a regimen of anti-psychotic

medications. Appx. 3, at 12.

• Petitioner was not taldng his medications at the jail and she could not

force him to do so. Appx. 3, at 12.

• The FCDC was "absolutely" ill equipped to treat petitioner. Appx. 3,

at 12.

5 P'ETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

 That in her opinion petitioner needed to be committed to a psychiatric

hospital due to the complexities of his medication regime and illness.

Appx. 3, at 13.

• That other pretrial detainees she has seen in this situation have been

taken to the Warm Springs State Hospital. Appx. 3, at 13.

• That petitioner has been committed to Warm Springs five times before.

Appx. 3, at 13.

• That immediate ,transport to MSH was necessary because "there's a

lot of concern, from a medical standpoint because he doesn't eat,

There's no way of knowing exactly the amount of liquid that he takes

in let alone solid fluids. In 2020, or maybe it was 2019,1 had Ilya taken

to the eznergency room three different times for nothing more than we

need.ed electrolytes checked. Appx. 3, at 14,

The State again aslced no questions of this witness. The Justice Court imrnediately

granted the motion made by, defense counsel. Appx. 3, at 15. The Justice Court

promptly issued a written ordcr indicating that petitioner's immediate placeinent at

MSH was necessary due to his extreme medical and psychological needs. Appx. 4.

In that order, the Justice Court specifically found that an emergency cornmitment

was necessary. The grounds for that conclusion were that,

Ctlhis court heard specific testimony that defendant's physical health is

in danger because the jail is not equipped to medicate or treat the
6 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
 defendant. Defendant is not taking medications, is not eating, and is
defecating in his cell.

Appx. 4. The Justice Court commanded that immediate placement be accornplished,

or that DPHFIS show cause to explain why it could not be done. Appx. 4.

Petitioner was not immediately admitted to MSH. On April 8, MSH reached

out to FCDC with the opinion that a Justice Court cannot order a fitness evaluation.

Appx. 5. MSH also explained that it would be "months before a bed is available."

Appx. 5. Once undersigned counsel intervened to obtain additional clarification on

why the Court's order was being not met, the following directi.on was sent from the

Montana Attorney General's office to Flathead County Attorney Travis Ahner:

Travis,

Cathy has filled me in on the case of State v. Khmelev. We have over 50

defendants waiting to be admitted to the forensic facility at Galen. We place
defendants on the waiting list and prioritize based on several factors, including
the severity of the charged offense. The pandemic has also hindered our ability
to accept patients as we only have 3 quarantine beds available. This has
limited our intakes to 3 every 2 weeks instead of 3-4 week.

Based on the waiting list and the fact that this case is charged as a
misdemeanor, I can't even begin to venture a guess as to when there will be a
bed. available. Chances are, that it would take longer than six months.

I am also aware that he is currently decornpensating while in your county jaiL

The civil commitment process is available. I would recomrnend that you
civilly commit bim so that he can receive treatment and be stabilized. This
would also allow sorne time for him to work his way through the waiting list.

Let me know,

7 PETITION FOB WM OF MANDAMUS.

Appx. 5. On April 27, the jail commander again reached out with concerns regarding

petitioner's condition, specifically that there was again feces and urine irt his cell.

Appx. 5. On May 10, the jail commander advised that staff is now having to go

"hands on" with petitioner to. control him at the jaiL Appx. 6.

On May 12, counsel filed a motion to dismiss the Justice Court cases because

of the unreasonable delay in pr viding a fitness to proceed commitment and

evaluation. Appx. 7. The State responded on May 25, Appx. 8. And a reply brief was

filed OD behalf of petitioner on May 25. Appx. 9. When no ruling had issued as of

June 24, counsel filed a request for an immediate ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Appx. 10. The State responded to that request the same day. Appx. 11.

On June 25, the Justice Court issued an order dismissing the cases pending

before it due to the unreasonable delay in admitting petiaoner to MSI-1 for a fitness

to proceed evaluation. Appx. 12.

B. The Present Proceedings.

Petitioner's release front custody was short lived, On June 28, 2021, petitioner

was arrested and issu.ed a citation for Criminal Trespass to Property. Appx. 13.

Petitioner made an initial appearance before the Kalispell Municipal Court (KMC)

on june 29, and bail was set at $500. Appx. 13, The order for conditions of release

includes a note indicating that the "Court entered not guilty plea on behalf of'

8 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

petitioner. KMC entered an order explaining this notation, Appx. 21. Petitioner

rernained in custody.

On August 17, counsel filed a motion to find petitioner unfit to proceed and

to immediately commit hirn to MSH for the purposes of restoring fitness. Appx. 14.'

To avoid the evaluation delays which plagued the previous Justice Court cases,

counsel had already obtained a rnental health examination from a community doctor

and attached it to the motion. Appx. 14; Appx. 20. The City did not oppose this

rnotion. Appx. 14.

KMC held an evidentiary hearing on August 31, Appx. 15.2 At that hearing,

KMC heard testimony from Commander Grande, considered exhibits from the

Justice Court proceedings, and considered argument from counsel. Appx. 15. The

testimony received from Corrunander Grande reiterated that the same problems from

the Justice Court proceedingS persisted. Appx. 15. In his written report, Dr. Scolatti

specifically opined that placement at MSH was appropriate given these difficulties.

Appx. 20, at 7. KMC issued a written order on August 31 finding petitioner unfit to

To avoid unnecessarily duplicating appendices, counsel informs this Court that the exhibits
attached to this motion were Dr. Scolatti's report and the pleadings from the Justice Court case
that have already been appended to this petition.
2 This appendix is a physical .copy of the audio recordings of this hearing; the copies of this
recording have been mailed to the Montana Supreme Court Clerk of Court. Counsel was unable to
obtain transcripts from the transcription company that the Office of the Public Defender has an
exclusive contract with sufficient expediency to have this petition filed before this Court's
September 14, 2021, conference. If transcripts would be helpful, counsel can supplement the
record with those transcripts once obtained.
9 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
proceed and commanding MSH to admit petitioner within 48 hours or show cause

as to why it would not do so. Appx. 16. KMC made numerous findings, Mcluding

that "Mmmediate admission on a fitness to proceed hold is the only remedy available

to this Court which will address the gravity of the circumstances." Appx. 16.

Additionally, KMC sent letters to MSH and the Flathead County Attorney's office

expressing concern about petitioner's well-being if immediate action was not taken.

Appx. 17; Appx. 18. KMC asked MSH to honor its order. Appx, 17. The KMC asked

the Flathead County Attorney to file an involuntary commitment proceeding because

"Mt is anticipated that the State Hospital will not lionor this Order[1" Appx, 18.

Since KMC issued its order committing petitioner to MSH for restoration of

fitness to proceed, no action' has been taken by DPIIHS. Petitioner remains in the

custody of FCDC. The Flathead County Attorney has similarly declined. M file a

petition for involuntary commitment, explaining to Commander Grande that the

evidentiary complications presented by seeking involuntary commitment of people

housed at the jail are such that the County Attorney's office opts not to pursue such

cases. Appx. 19. The County Attorney also expressed budgetary concerns regarding

such cases. Appx. 19.

Meanwhile, petitioner continues to languish in jail without medical or mental

health services, and without the present ability to assist counsel in his defense.

10 PETITION FOR w7tCT OF MANDAMUS.

HL JURISDICTION.

A writ of mandamus may issue "to compel the performance of an act that

the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or stationH"

Section 27-26-102. 'The clear legal duty must involve a ministerial act, not a

discretionary act.'" Smith v. Mont. Det. Of Corn, 2020 Mont LEXIS 51, 3 OP 19-

0735 (quoting Srnith v. Missoula Cty, 1999 MT 330, ¶ 28). At the same time, the

Montana Constitution commands that "[c]ourts of justice shall be open to eveiy

person, and speedy rernedY aftbrded for every injury of person, property, or

character...Right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay."

Mont. Const,, Art, II, § 16.

IV. THE MONTANA STATE HOSPITAL DOES NOT HAVE

IMSCRETION AS TO WHETHER TO HONOR FITNESS TO
PROCEED COMMITMENTS.

Here, it is appropriate to command DPHHS to honor a court order requiring

immediate admission and treatment of the petitioner. DPHHS has no discretion to

ignore such court orders. In fact, DPFIHS has a statutory obligation to treat an

individual who is committed pursuant to a court order finding the person unfit to

proceed. Section 46-14-221(2)(a), MCA. The only arguable discretion afforded to

DPI-IHS is that the Director of DPHES possibly has some discretion in choosing

which "appropriate mental health facility" or "residential facility" is utilized for this

I1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

purpose. Id. As indicated, the almost invariable practice of DPHHS is to utilize

MSH, which creates backlogs. However, the Director does not have the discretion

to forego the obligation to choose an appropriate facility — whether that be MSH or

some other suitable facility - and instead warehouse the mentally ill in county jails.

Id. This may be expedient and cost-efficient, but it is also inhumane and without

statutory authority.

Moreover, the duty of the Director to immediately admit a person found unfit

to proceed is amplified when the person is suffering from such severe illness that

mental and physical well-being deteriorates at jail. Unless DPREIS comes forward

with some other suitable facility, courts are well within their powers to command

immediate admission to MSH in eases of immediate need. In fact, several

constitutional commands require expedience in the admission and treatment of the

mentally i11 who are not fit to proceed. U.S. Const., Amends, V & XJV; Mont,

Const., Art. II, §§ 4 & 17. Those authorities are fleshed out in more detail in the

following sections,

A. Due Process.

"It has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that

he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against

him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subject

to trial." Drope v, Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975); § 46-14403, MCA.

12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

Unreasonable delay in providing restorative services to a person fo'und unfit to

proceed violates due process. That is especially so for pretrial detainees. See, e.g.,

State v. Mon, 2003 MT 342, II 11 (citing Jackson, 406 U.S. a 738) ("it is

unconstitutional to indefinitely hold a person who is unfit to proceed without

following the civil or criminal commitment procedures provided by state law; due

process requires, at a minimum, some rational relation between the nature and

duration of commitment and its purpose.").

The question presented here is what happens when an unfit defendant

languishes M county jail because DPI-ITIS refuses admission on a timely basis.

Several courts have found that it violates due process to warehouse the mentally ill

in county jails under such circumstances. See, e.g., ildvoc. Ctr. fir Elderly and

Disabled v, La. Dept, of Health and Hospital, 731 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. La, 2010);

Or. Advoc. Ctr, v, Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003); Terry v. Hill, 232

F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The general reasoning for this conclusion is that

"subjecting Lncompetent Detainees to extended delays in jail before their transfer to

[the State inpatient treatment facility] bears no rational relationship to the restoration

of their competency or a determination that they will never becorne competent. Put

differently, the Detainees are in jail not because their imprisonment is related to the

restoration of their competeney; they are incarcerated because there is no roorn for

them elsewhere." ildvoc. or for Elderly and Disabled, 731 F.Supp.2d at 610.

13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

 A basic substantive due process analysis applies, balancing the interests and

harms at play. Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121; See also Advocacy Ctr. fir Elderly and

Disabled, 731 F.Supp.2d at 608-10.

1, The defendant's interests in the due process balancing test.

A person is entitled to liberty from unwarranted incarceration and the medical

right to restorative treatment. Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121. These interests are implicated

by warehousing unfit defendants in local detention centers because of "the

undisputed harms that incapacitated defendants suffer when they spend weeks or

months in jail waiting for transfer" to a facility designed to help them regain

competency. Id. at 1120.

These harrns include the following: Although jails can sometimes

provide treatment to stabilize a patient, they caimot restore a patient to
competency. Thus, incarceration in a county jail delays an
incapacitated criminal defendant's possible return to competency. The
disciplinary system that jails use to control inrnates is ineffective for,
and possibly hamiful to, incapacitated criminal defendants. Because of
their unpredictable or disruptive behavior, they are often locked in their
cells for 22 to 23 hours a day, which further exacerbates their mental
illness, Incapacitated criminal defendants have a high risk of suicide,
and the longer they are deprived of treatment, the greater the likelihood
they will decompensate and suffer unduly.

Id. Just as Oregon's statutory procedures recognized the validity of these interests

and the harms associated with ignoring them, Id. at 1121, Montana's statutory

scheme is meant to avoid the same type of harms, Tison, 2003 MT 342 at 1111.

14 PF.TMON FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

 In fact, the treatment bf the mentally ill in detention centers is becoming an

increasingly pressing matter given the high volume of mentally ill our society

chooses to incarcerate. According to a recent report, "the Department of Justice

estimates that at least half of incarcerated persons have a mental health diagnosis."

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of

Punishrnent, Redemption, and the Effects on Communities, 20 (June 2019),

https://w ww.usccr.go v/pubs/2019/06-15 -Co llateral-Consequences.pdf. More

troubling, "Wncarcerated individuals are three to five times more likely to meet

criteria for serious psychological distress than adults in the general population." Id.

at 21. Compared to the general population, they are also "twice as likely to have an

intellectual disability, four to six times rnore likely to have a cognitive disability,

twice as likely to have a mobility disorder, three to four times more likely to be blind

or have vision impairment, and two to three tirnes more likely to have a hearing

impairment than the general population." Id. In sum, the majority of people Montana

chooses to incarcerate will suffer elevated distress during the period of incarceration,

2. The State's interests in the due procep balancinR test.

Courts have had an extremely difficult time finding "a legitimate state interest

in keeping mentally incapacitated criminal defendants lociced up in county jails for

15 PETITION FOR wRa OF' MANDAMUS.

weeks or months." Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121. The only plausible State interest is

economic; the State saves money by warehousing people without providing

treatment. See, e.g., Advoc. Crr. for Elderly and Disabled, 731 F.Supp.2d at 623 ("In

sum, the evidence presented indicates that the decision to keep the Detainees in

parish jail is an economic one and not one made out of concenl for their mental-

health treatment.").

3. Balancing the interem and assessing the reasonableness of the

delay

Fortunately, courts have refused to perrnit States to underrnMe the rights of

incompetent defendants based merely on their desire to save money. .Td.; Terty, 232

F.Supp.2d at 944; Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121. On the other hand, a defendant's liberty

interest in avoiding unnecessary incarceration and in obtaining adequate medical

treatment are substantial. The balance leans heavily in the defendant's favor. See,

e.g., Ten"), 232 F. Supp. 24 at 943-44. Nevertheless, such pretial detainees are at

the mercy of a political landscape that has little regard for their needs. Id. at 944-45

(noting testimony of director of Arkansas State Hospital that "the lack of treatment

for the mentally ill is due more to a general societal attitude toward the mentally ill

rather than a lack of oaring by" the state agency).

Just as in Mink, Montana's DPIMS "is solely responsible for the timely

treatment of incapacitated criminal defendants so that they may become competent

to stand trial." 322 F.3d at 1119-20. Yet none of this can talce place unless and until

16 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

the DPHHS actually admits the patient for treatment. The presurnptive guid.eline for

any treatment to be completed is ninety days. Section 46-14-221(3)(a). Whatever

fiscal constraints the DPHES faces, lack, of funding does not permit delays such as

the one at issue here,

B. Right to Dignity

Furthermore, the right to dignity secured by Article SI, § 4 of the Montana

Constitution mandates that the government meet the basic needs of those entrusted

to its custody. Walker v. State, 2003 MT 134.

In the case of the mentally ill, basic human needs must be ntet, along
with adequate opportunity to develop capacities, and adequate medical
health care must also be provided to treat the illness. Jt is natural to
speak of the inherent dignity of such developmentally disabled or
mentally ill persons, and to speak of the requirement that such
vulnerable persons be treated with dignity.

However we punish, whatever means we use to reform, we must not

punish or reform in a way that degrades the humanity, the dignity, of
the prisoner. Protecting dignity should include, for example, security
from physical harm, including security from sexual violation, by other
prisoners or guards. It should &so include attention to such basic human
needs as adequate medical care, humane rules for visitation, adequate
exercise, and adequate opportunity for education or other capacity-
developing activity,

Id at ¶ 81 (quo4ng Matthew O. Clifford & Thomas P. Huff, Some Thoughts on the

Meaning and Scope of the Montana Constitution's "Dignity" Clause with Possible

Applications (Summer 2000), 61 Mont, L. Rev. 301, 307).

17 PETITION FOR WRIT OF NIMMUS.

 Where, as here, DPI-MS's refusal to promptly begin restorative services

results in the systeraatic deprivation of medical and psychological care, the right to

dignity is implicated. As noted, DPHI-IS has chosen to warehouse the petitioner in a

county jail that carmot adequately feed, medicate, bathe, or care for the needs of the

petitioner. The degree to which the present confmement is degrading petitioner's

dignity cannot be overstated.

V. CONCLUSION.

Accordingly, Petitioner requests the following relief:

(I) That the Court accept original jurisdiction over this matter;

(2) That the Court order DPHHS to comply with the mandates of the

Kalispell Municipal Court's order committing the petitioner to MSH

for the purposes of restoring fitness to proceed;

(3) That the Court specifically order DPILLIS to admit the petitioner to

MSH within 48 hours of this Court's decision.

(4) Alternatively, if this Court does not require DPECHS to immediately

admit petitioner to MSH, that this Court order DPHHS to immediately

admit petitioner to some other medically-suitable facility within 48

hours, or to show cause to this Court why DPHHS has not done so.

Respegfully submitted on this 9th day of September, 2021.

/s/ GREG RAEKOCH

Attorney for Petitioner
18 PETITION FOR WRIT' OP MANDAMUS.
19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
 PETITION VER1 CATION

State of Montana
:ss
County of Flathead )

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, declare that all the facts and matters

set out herein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated this 9th day of S ptember, 2021.

Greg Raplco h
Attorney for etitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of September, 2021.

ASHLEY TORREY
MOUSY PIJKPC for the
State ot Montana
aiding at Kalispell, Montana
My Commission 'spires
January 31, 2024

20 PE-ITnON FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Rules 11 and 14 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure,

certify that this Petition is printed with a Times New Roman, proportionately spaced

typeface of 14 points, is double spaced except for footnotes and quoted and indented

material, is has less than 4,000 words (appx. 3,998) as counted by the attorney's

word processing software, excluding table of contents, table of citations,

verification, certificate of service, exhibits, certificate of compliance and addendum,

if any,

Dated this 9th day of September, 2021.

\
Greg R4koch `‘,
Attorney for Petitioner

2t PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

 TABLE OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Order Setting Bail and Conditions in Justice Court TK-21-566

APPENDIX 2: Motion for Commitment on FTP in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 3: Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 4: Order Committing Defendant to MSH in Justice Court TK-21-
566
APPENDIX 5: Email Correspondence re: Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 6: Ernail Correspondence re: Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 7: Motion to Dismiss in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 8: State Response to MTD in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 9: Defendant Reply for MTD in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 10: Motion for Immediate Ruling in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX l 1: State Response to Motion for Immediate Ruling in Justice
Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 12: Order Dismissing Case in Justice Court TK-21-566
APPENDIX 13: Order Setting Bail and Conditions in KMC TK-21-1322
APPENDIX 14: Motion to Find Defendant Unfit to Proceed and To Immediately
Commit Him To MSH in KMC TK-21-1322
APPENDIX 15: Physical CD Containing Evidentiary Hearing in KMC TK-21-
1322
APPENDIX 16: Order Committing Defendant to MSH in KMC TK-21-1322
APPENDIX 17: KMC Letter to MSH re: Defendant's Fitness
APPENDIX 18: KMC Letter to County Attorney re: Defendant's Fitness
APPENDIX 19: Email Correspondence Between Commander Grande and
County Attorney re: Involuntary Commitment of Defendant
APPENDIX 20: Psychological Evaluation by Dr. Michael Scolatti
APPENDIX 21: Order re: Defendant Not Fit to Enter Plea in KMC TK-21-1322
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gregory John Rapkoch, hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the
foregoing Petition - Writ to the following on 09-10-2021:

Austin Miles Knudsen (Govt Attorney)

215 N. Sanders
Helena MT 59620
Representing: Department of Health and Human Services, Kyle Fouts, Adam Meier
Service Method: eService

Lori Adams (Limited Court Judge)

312 1st Ave E,
Kalispell MT 59901
Service Method: eService
E-mail Address: laa@kalispell.com

Johnna Justine Preble (Govt Attorney)

312 1st Ave. E.
Kalispell MT 59901
Service Method: eService
E-mail Address: jpreble@kalispell.com

Kyle Fouts
P.O. Box 300
Warm Springs MT 59756
Service Method: E-mail Delivery
E-mail Address: KFouts@mt.gov

Adam Meier
111 North Sanders
Helena MT 59620
Service Method: E-mail Delivery
E-mail Address: Adam.Meier@mt.gov

Electronically Signed By: Gregory John Rapkoch

Dated: 09-10-2021