Williams v. Sorensen

2014 UT App 20
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
GREGORY EMMANUEL WILLIAMS,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
DENNIS SORENSEN,
Respondent and Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20130872-CA
Filed January 24, 2014
Sixth District Court, Manti Department
The Honorable Wallace A. Lee
No. 130600020
Gregory Emanuel Williams, Appellant Pro Se
Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, and
JOHN A. PEARCE.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Gregory Emmanuel Williams appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his petition for extraordinary relief as frivolous.
This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary
disposition on the basis that the grounds for review are too
insubstantial to merit further proceedings.
¶2 In the first instance, we address Williams’s claim that the
district court erred in determining that he had failed to include “a
short, plain statement of the facts.” Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(b)(3). While
the district court did note that it believed that the extensive
statement of facts did not comply with the rule because the facts
were neither short nor plain, it went on to analyze the merits of
Williams’s claims. Accordingly, because the district court did not
base its dismissal decision on Williams’s recitation of the facts,

Williams v. Sorensen
1. Due to Williams’s behavior, he was removed from one
disciplinary hearing and, in accordance with applicable prison
regulations, the hearing was allowed to take place without him.
20130872-CA 2 2014 UT App 20
Williams cannot show any error based on the district court’s
pronouncement that his statement of the facts failed to comply with
the rule.
¶3 As to the district court’s decision to dismiss the petition for
extraordinary relief as frivolous, we review a district court’s
decision in a rule 65B extraordinary writ case for an abuse of
discretion. See State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 26, 127 P.3d 682. On
appeal, Williams provides this court with no legitimate reason to
overturn the ruling of the district court.
¶4 The district court noted that Williams’s “claim boils down
to a disagreement about inmate discipline, security, and placement
within the prison system, matters over which the Department of
Corrections has wide discretion and is afforded great deference.”
After reviewing the petition for extraordinary relief and all of the
documents Williams filed on appeal, we agree with the district
court’s characterization of Williams’s claims. Williams clearly
disagreed with the factual allegations underlying the disciplinary
proceedings, arguing that reports of the incidents contained false
information. Despite Williams’s complaints concerning the
evidence, we agree with the district court that the Department of
Corrections did not abuse its discretion in the disciplinary process
and afforded Williams due process in resolving the disciplinary
actions. Williams was provided notice of the offenses with
sufficient information to enable him to understand the claims
against him. Further, he was provided with an opportunity to
contest the allegations and present evidence in his defense, even if
he did not take full advantage of that opportunity, and he was able1
to appeal the disciplinary hearing officer’s decision through an
administrative process. Under these circumstances, we cannot
conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing
the petition for extraordinary relief, especially when its decision

Williams v. Sorensen
20130872-CA 3 2014 UT App 20
was based, in large part, on the discretion afforded to the
Department of Corrections in disciplinary matters.
¶5 Affirmed.