(a) Availability of remedy. Where no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available, a person may petition the court for extraordinary relief on any of the grounds set forth in paragraph (b) (involving wrongful restraint on personal liberty), paragraph (c) (involving the wrongful use of public or corporate authority) or paragraph (d) (involving the wrongful use of judicial authority, the failure to exercise such authority, and actions by the Board of Pardons and Parole). There shall be no special form of writ. Except for instances governed by Rule 65C, the procedures in this rule shall govern proceedings on all petitions for extraordinary relief. To the extent that this rule does not provide special procedures, proceedings on petitions for extraordinary relief shall be governed by the procedures set forth elsewhere in these rules.
Rule 65B.Extraordinary relief
Part VIII: Provisional and Final Remedies and Special Proceedings · Last amended July 1, 1996 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 65B is the Utah procedure for petitioning a court for extraordinary relief when someone is wrongfully restrained of personal liberty, or when public, corporate, or judicial authority has been misused or ignored and no other adequate remedy exists.
Full Text of Rule 65B
(b) Wrongful restraints on personal liberty.
(1) Scope. Except for instances governed by Rule 65C, this paragraph shall govern all petitions claiming that a person has been wrongfully restrained of personal liberty, and the court may grant relief appropriate under this paragraph.
(2) Commencement. The proceeding shall be commenced by filing a petition with the clerk of the court in the district in which the petitioner is restrained or the respondent resides or in which the alleged restraint is occurring.
(3) Contents of the petition and attachments. The petition shall contain a short, plain statement of the facts on the basis of which the petitioner seeks relief. It shall identify the respondent and the place where the person is restrained. It shall state the cause or pretense of the restraint, if known by the petitioner. It shall state whether the legality of the restraint has already been adjudicated in a prior proceeding and, if so, the reasons for the denial of relief in the prior proceeding. The petitioner shall attach to the petition any legal process available to the petitioner that resulted in restraint. The petitioner shall also attach to the petition a copy of the pleadings filed by the petitioner in any prior proceeding that adjudicated the legality of the restraint.
(4) Memorandum of authorities. The petitioner shall not set forth argument or citations or discuss authorities in the petition, but these may be set out in a separate memorandum, two copies of which shall be filed with the petition.
(5) Dismissal of frivolous claims. On review of the petition, if it is apparent to the court that the legality of the restraint has already been adjudicated in a prior proceeding, or if for any other reason any claim in the petition shall appear frivolous on its face, the court shall forthwith issue an order dismissing the claim, stating that the claim is frivolous on its face and the reasons for this conclusion. The order need not state findings of fact or conclusions of law. The order shall be sent by mail to the petitioner. Proceedings on the claim shall terminate with the entry of the order of dismissal.
(6) Responsive pleadings. If the petition is not dismissed as being frivolous on its face, the court shall direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of the petition and a copy of any memorandum upon the respondent by mail. At the same time, the court may issue an order directing the respondent to answer or otherwise respond to the petition, specifying a time within which the respondent must comply. If the circumstances require, the court may also issue an order directing the respondent to appear before the court for a hearing on the legality of the restraint. An answer to a petition shall state plainly whether the respondent has restrained the person alleged to have been restrained, whether the person so restrained has been transferred to any other person, and if so, the identity of the transferee, the date of the transfer, and the reason or authority for the transfer. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit the court from ruling upon the petition based upon a dispositive motion.
(7) Temporary relief. If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained will be removed from the court’s jurisdiction or will suffer irreparable injury before compliance with the hearing order can be enforced, the court shall issue a warrant directing the sheriff to bring the respondent before the court to be dealt with according to law. Pending a determination of the petition, the court may place the person alleged to have been restrained in the custody of such other persons as may be appropriate.
(8) Alternative service of the hearing order. If the respondent cannot be found, or if it appears that a person other than the respondent has custody of the person alleged to be restrained, the hearing order and any other process issued by the court may be served on the person having custody in the manner and with the same effect as if that person had been named as respondent in the action.
(9) Avoidance of service by respondent. If anyone having custody of the person alleged to be restrained avoids service of the hearing order or attempts wrongfully to remove the person from the court’s jurisdiction, the sheriff shall immediately arrest the responsible person. The sheriff shall forthwith bring the person arrested before the court to be dealt with according to law.
(10) Hearing or other proceedings. In the event that the court orders a hearing, the court shall hear the matter in a summary fashion and shall render judgment accordingly. The respondent or other person having custody shall appear with the person alleged to be restrained or shall state the reasons for failing to do so. The court may nevertheless direct the respondent to bring before it the person alleged to be restrained. If the petitioner waives the right to be present at the hearing, the court shall modify the hearing order accordingly. The hearing order shall not be disobeyed for any defect of form or any misdescription in the order or the petition, if enough is stated to impart the meaning and intent of the proceeding to the respondent.
(c) Wrongful use of or failure to exercise public authority.
(1) Who may petition the court; security. The attorney general may, and when directed to do so by the governor shall, petition the court for relief on the grounds enumerated in this paragraph. Any person who is not required to be represented by the attorney general and who is aggrieved or threatened by one of the acts enumerated in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph may petition the court under this paragraph if (A) the person claims to be entitled to an office unlawfully held by another or (B) if the attorney general fails to file a petition under this paragraph after receiving notice of the person’s claim. A petition filed by a person other than the attorney general under this paragraph shall be brought in the name of the petitioner, and the petition shall be accompanied by an undertaking with sufficient sureties to pay any judgment for costs and damages that may be recovered against the petitioner in the proceeding. The sureties shall be in the form for bonds on appeal provided for in Rule 73.
(2) Grounds for relief. Appropriate relief may be granted: (A) where a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, whether civil or military, a franchise, or an office in a corporation created by the authority of the state of Utah; (B) where a public officer does or permits any act that results in a forfeiture of the office; (C) where persons act as a corporation in the state of Utah without being legally incorporated; (D) where any corporation has violated the laws of the state of Utah relating to the creation, alteration or renewal of corporations; or (E) where any corporation has forfeited or misused its corporate rights, privileges or franchises.
(3) Proceedings on the petition. On the filing of a petition, the court may require that notice be given to adverse parties before issuing a hearing order, or may issue a hearing order requiring the adverse party to appear at the hearing on the merits. The court may also grant temporary relief in accordance with the terms of Rule 65A.
(d) Wrongful use of judicial authority or failure to comply with duty; actions by board of pardons and parole.
(1) Who may petition. A person aggrieved or whose interests are threatened by any of the acts enumerated in this paragraph may petition the court for relief.
(2) Grounds for relief. Appropriate relief may be granted: (A) where an inferior court, administrative agency, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion; (B) where an inferior court, administrative agency, corporation or person has failed to perform an act required by law as a duty of office, trust or station; (C) where an inferior court, administrative agency, corporation or person has refused the petitioner the use or enjoyment of a right or office to which the petitioner is entitled; or (D) where the Board of Pardons and Parole has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to perform an act required by constitutional or statutory law.
(3) Proceedings on the petition. On the filing of a petition, the court may require that notice be given to adverse parties before issuing a hearing order, or may issue a hearing order requiring the adverse party to appear at the hearing on the merits. The court may direct the inferior court, administrative agency, officer, corporation or other person named as respondent to deliver to the court a transcript or other record of the proceedings. The court may also grant temporary relief in accordance with the terms of Rule 65A.
(4) Scope of review. Where the challenged proceedings are judicial in nature, the court’s review shall not extend further than to determine whether the respondent has regularly pursued its authority.
Amendment History
Amended effective September 1, 1991; May 1, 1993; July 1, 1996.
Advisory Committee Notes
Advisory Committee Notes
This rule represents a complete reorganization of the former rule. This rule also revises parts of the former rule dealing with habeas corpus and post-conviction remedies. The rule applies generally to proceedings that are necessitated by the absence of another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the court. After the rule’s introductory paragraph, each subsequent paragraph is intended to deal with a separate type of proceeding. Thus, subparagraph (b) deals with proceedings involving wrongful restraint on personal liberty other than those governed by Rule 65C; paragraph (c) deals with proceedings involving the wrongful use of public or corporate authority; and paragraph (d) deals with proceedings involving the wrongful use of judicial authority or the failure to exercise such authority. Paragraph (d) also deals with petitions challenging actions by the Board of Pardons and Parole and the failure of the Board to perform a required act. To the extent that the special procedures set forth in these paragraphs do not cover specific procedural issues that arise during a proceeding, the normal rules of civil procedure will apply.
This rule effectively eliminates the concept of the “writ” from extraordinary relief procedure. In the view of the advisory committee, the concept was used inconsistently and confusingly in the former rule, and there was disagreement among judges and lawyers as to what it meant in actual practice. The concept has been replaced with terms such as “hearing order” and “relief” that are more descriptive of the procedural reality.
Paragraph (b). This paragraph governs all petitions claiming that a person has been wrongfully restrained of personal liberty other than those specifically governed by paragraph Rule 65C. It replaces paragraph (f) of the former rule. Paragraph (b) endeavors to simplify the procedure in habeas corpus cases and provides for a means of summary dismissal of frivolous claims. Thus, if it is apparent to the court that the claim is “frivolous on its face”, the court may issue an order dismissing the claim, which terminates the proceeding. Apart from this significant change from former practice, paragraph (b) is patterned after the former rule.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) replace paragraph (b) of the former rule. The committee’s general purpose in drafting these paragraphs was to simplify and clarify the requirements of the preexisting paragraph.
Paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) replaces paragraph (b)(1) of the former rule. This paragraph deals generally with proceedings for the unlawful use of public office or corporate franchises. As a general matter, the attorney general may seek relief on grounds enumerated in the paragraph. Any other person, including a governmental officer or entity not required to be represented by the attorney general, may also seek relief under paragraph (c) if the person claims to be entitled to an office unlawfully held by another or if the attorney general fails to file a petition under paragraph (c) after receiving notice of the person’s claim. In allowing appropriate governmental entities and officers to proceed under this paragraph, the rule eliminates a procedural barrier that previously prevented anyone other than the attorney general and “private” persons to seek relief. Although the rule removes the procedural barrier, it was not intended to modify the substantive rules that limit the authority or standing of any governmental entity or officer. Nor was the rule intended to modify the constitutional or statutory authority of the attorney general. Since paragraph (c) provides only a general outline of procedures to be used in such proceedings, litigants should look to the other rules of civil procedure for guidance on specific questions not covered by paragraph (c). In proceedings under this paragraph and paragraph (d), parties seeking temporary relief in advance of a hearing on the merits should comply with the requirements of Rule 65A.
Paragraph (d). This paragraph governs relatively unusual proceedings in which the normal rules of appellate procedure are inadequate to provide redress for an abuse by a court, administrative agency, or officer exercising judicial or administrative functions. This paragraph replaces subparagraph (2), (3) and (4) of paragraph (b) of the former rule. This paragraph allows the court wide discretion in the manner in which such proceedings are handled. Like the former rule, the scope of review under this paragraph is limited to determining whether the respondent has regularly pursued its authority.
1992 Revisions.
These revisions harmonize parallel provisions of the rule and address technical problems relating to venue and the content of memoranda and orders in habeas corpus and post-conviction proceedings.
Paragraph (b). Changes to this paragraph affect the venue requirements for one category of extraordinary relief petition. The general rule established in the paragraph is that petitions governed by paragraph (b) must be commenced in the district court in the county in which the commitment leading to confinement was issued. Challenges to parole violation proceedings, however, should be filed in the district court in the county in which the petitioner is located.
Paragraph (c). The changes to this paragraph enlarge the discretion of the court in dealing with those petitions for wrongful restraint that the paragraph governs. In dismissing claims that are frivolous on their face, the court is relieved of the responsibility to state findings of fact or conclusions of law. This change harmonizes paragraph (c) with the parallel requirements of paragraph (b)(7) of the rule. Other changes allow the court more discretion in ordering a hearing concerning unlawful restraints. The remaining changes in this paragraph clarify the contents of pleadings and memoranda filed with the court.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 65B is Utah's catch-all for relief that doesn't fit an ordinary lawsuit or appeal — available only where "no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy" exists. The rule intentionally drops the old formal "writ" labels (habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto) in favor of a single, more flexible framework built around a "hearing order." It splits into three tracks. Paragraph (b) covers wrongful restraint of personal liberty other than post-conviction challenges covered by Rule 65C: the petitioner files with the clerk in the district where the restraint is occurring, describes the restraint and any prior adjudication of its legality, and attaches whatever legal process led to the restraint. A court that finds the claim already decided or frivolous on its face can dismiss it immediately by mailed order, without findings of fact — otherwise, the respondent gets served and may be ordered to answer or appear at a hearing, and if the restrained person risks being moved out of the court's reach, the court can issue a warrant to bring the respondent before it.
Paragraph (c) addresses the wrongful use of public or corporate authority — someone unlawfully holding a public office or corporate franchise, a corporation operating without lawful authority, or an officer whose conduct forfeits their office. The attorney general normally brings these petitions (and must, if the governor directs), but a private person can proceed alone if they claim to be entitled to the office in question or if the attorney general declines to act after notice; a private petitioner must post security for costs and damages, using the same bond form required for appeals under Rule 73. Paragraph (d) covers misuse — or non-use — of judicial authority: a lower court, agency, or officer that exceeded its jurisdiction, abused its discretion, or failed to perform a required duty, plus challenges to actions or inaction by the Board of Pardons and Parole. Review under paragraph (d) is narrow, limited to whether the respondent regularly pursued its authority. Both (c) and (d) petitions can seek temporary relief under the standards of Rule 65A while the case proceeds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What counts as "extraordinary relief" under Utah Rule 65B?
Relief available only when no other adequate remedy exists — covering wrongful restraint of personal liberty, unlawful holding or exercise of public or corporate authority, and misuse or non-use of judicial authority, including certain challenges to the Board of Pardons and Parole.
Does Rule 65B still use terms like habeas corpus or mandamus?
No. The rule replaced those older writ labels with a unified procedure built around a "hearing order," though the underlying types of relief they used to describe are still available under the rule's three paragraphs.
What happens if my Rule 65B petition is frivolous or already decided?
The court can dismiss it immediately by mailed order stating that the claim is frivolous on its face or has already been adjudicated, without needing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the case ends there.
Who can challenge someone unlawfully holding a public office in Utah?
Ordinarily the attorney general, who must act if directed by the governor. A private person can also petition if they claim to be entitled to the office themselves, or if the attorney general fails to act after receiving notice of the claim — but a private petitioner must post a bond covering possible costs and damages.
Can I get emergency relief while a Rule 65B petition is pending?
Petitions under paragraphs (c) and (d) — covering public authority and judicial authority — can seek temporary relief under the same standards that govern TROs and preliminary injunctions in Rule 65A.
How narrow is the court's review of judicial authority under paragraph (d)?
Where the challenged proceeding is judicial in nature, review is limited to whether the respondent regularly pursued its authority — it is not a fresh look at the merits of the underlying decision.
Does Rule 65B cover challenges to a criminal conviction?
Source & verification. Rule text, Advisory Committee Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: utah extraordinary writutah habeas corpus rulewrit of mandamus utahquo warranto utahutah rule 65bchallenge board of pardons and parole utahwrongful restraint of liberty utah