Avery v. Maine State Prison
This text of Avery v. Maine State Prison (Avery v. Maine State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. Docket No.: 12-AP-09 / JcN ----KtrJ- 7/aq .Jors CHRIS A VERY,
Petitioner DECISION AND ORDER V.
MAINE STATE PRISON,
Respondent
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's request, pursuant to M .R. Civ. P.
SOC, for judicial review of disciplinary measures imposed by Respondent in March 2012.
Factual/Procedural Background
The record reveals that at all pertinent times, Petitioner was an inmate at the
Maine State Prison (the Prison). On February 19, 2012, during a search of Petitioner's
cell, officers at the Prison found three pills of Adderall in Petitioner's headphones. When
questioned about the pills, Petitioner did not provide any information.
On February 14, 2012, the Maine Department of Corrections issued a "Letter of
Notification of Disciplinary Hearing," which Petitioner acknowledged receiving. The
notice informed Petitioner that he had been placed on report for committing two
disciplinary violations "A- trafficking" and "B- medications."
On February 16, 2012, the Maine Department of Corrections conducted a hearing.
The record establishes that Petitioner entered a not guilty plea to the charges. According
to the record, Petitioner offered "no comment" in response to the allegations. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that it was "more likely than not
1 this prisoner is guilty, Pills found in headphones." The Hearing Officer found Petitioner
guilty of "Trafficking" and "Medication," and recommended the imposition of certain
disciplinary measures.
Petitioner filed an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer from the Hearing-
Officer's determination. In his appeal, Petitioner asserted that he had been improperly
charged with trafficking, and that he was not initially charged with the medications
violation. The Deputy Warden affirmed the Hearing Officer's findings and
recommendation, and denied Petitioner's appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed this
request for judicial review pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C.
Discussion
In an action for judicial review under M.R. Civ. P. 80C, the Court is "confined to
the record upon which the agency decision was based ... " 5 M.R.S. § 11006(1) (2011).
The Court must defer to the administrative agency and review the agency decision for an
abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence from
the record. Thacker v. Konover Dev. Corp., 2003 ME 30, ' 14, 818 A.2d 1013.
Additionally, the Court will give great deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute
it is charged with administering. Rangeley Crossroads Coal. v. Land Use Regulation
Comm'n, 2008 ME 115,' 10, 955 A.2d 223; see also Arsenault v. Sec'y of State, 2006
ME 111,' 21, 905 A.2d 285 ("We defer to the Secretary's interpretation if the statutes or
statutory scheme are ambiguous and if his interpretation is reasonable."). Overall, the
Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency merely because the evidence
could give rise to more than one result. Gulick v. Bd. of Env't. Prot., 452 A.2d 1202,
1209 (Me. 1982).
2 Respondent urges the Court to deny Petitioner's request for relief citing
Petitioner's failure to raise the issues at the initial hearing. The record contains no
evidence that establishes that Petitioner raised the appropriateness of the trafficking
charge or the timing of the medications charge at the initial hearing. 1 Respondent's
waiver claim, therefore, has merit.
Even if the Court were to consider the Petitioner's argument, the Court cannot
conclude that Respondent erred. First, because the record reflects that Petitioner did not
offer any testimony or statements at the hearing, there is no evidence of record to support
Petitioner's contention that he was improperly charged with trafficking? In addition,
because the notice by which the hearing was scheduled plainly identified "B -
medications" as one of the charges, Petitioner had sufficient notice of the charges before
the hearing.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Petitioner's request for relief.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and
Order into the docket by reference.
Dated: 7/ zu)tJ
1 The record does show that Petitioner raised the issues in his appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer. 2 Although Petitioner asserted in his appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer that the medication found was prescribed to him by the medical department, there was no evidence presented at the hearing on that issue.
3 Date Filed 3/26/12 Kennebec Docket No. AP12-09 F County
Action: Petition for Judicial Review J. Nivison 80C
Chris Avery vs. Maine State Prison
Plaintiffs Attorney Defendant's Attorney
Chris Avery, ProSe Diane Sleek, AAG 807 Cushing Road 6 State House Station Warren, Maine 04864 Augusta, Maine 04333-0006
Date of Entry
3/26/12 Petition for Judicial Review of Final Agency Action, filed. slAvery, ProSe Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees, filed. slAvery, ProSe lndigency Affidavit, filed. slAvery, Pro Se Certificate, filed. s/ Wanda Faxon, Acct Tech
4/2/12 ORDER, Mills, J. It is ORDERED that: the filing fee is waived. the service cost shall be paid as an expense of administration. Copy to party.
5/29/12 Letter, filed. slAvery, Pro Se
5/30/12 Letter sent to Mr. Avery regarding service. s/Michele Lumbert, Clerk
6/14/12 Letter regarding service, with attachments. slAvery, Pro Se
6/20/12 Letter sent to Mr. Avery regarding service. s/Michele Lumbert, Clerk
8/17/12 Motion for Stay Pending Payment of Filing Fee, filed. s/Sieek, AA Affidavit of Venda Faxon, filed. siFaxon Proposed Order, filed.
10/11/12 ORDER, Nivison, J. After consideration of the respondent's motion for stay pending payment of filing fee, that motion is granted. Copies to Atty/Party
10/12/12 Partial filing fee paid in the amount of $60.53. (9/11/12) Copy of docket sheet mailed to party/atty.
10/18/12 Letter received from Petitioner, filed. slAvery, ProSe Sent letter to petitioner
11/8/12 Partial payment of filing fee from Dept. of Corrections ($5.00)
11114112 Letter requesting a Default Judgment, filed. slAvery, Prose
AP-12-09 Page 1 11114112 Certified copy of Record, filed. siSieek, AAG (filed 11 113112)
11115112 Notice and Briefing Schedule issued: Copies to attylparty
12121112 Brief, filed. slAvery, Pro Se
117113 Copy of letter, filed. siSieek, AAG
218113 Respondent's Brief, filed. siSieek, AAG
316113 Reply Brief, filed. slAvery, ProSe
3/7113 Partial payment of filing fee from Dept. of Corrections ($1 0.00)
6114113 Oral argument scheduled 7116113 at 12:00 p.m. Notice of Hearing mailed to Petitioner and AAG Sleek
6119113 Partial payment of filing fee from Dept. of Corrections ($20.00)
6119113 Writ of Habeas Corpus to Testify ordered by J. Nivison, 6118113. Issued. Attested copies to Kennebec S.O.
719113 Letter from Petitioner indicating he is now housed in Charleston at CCF, filed 715113. slAvery, Pro Se Copy sent to AAG Sleek
7112113 Partial payment of filing fee from Dept. of Corrections ($5.00).
7116113 Oral argument held. J. Nivison presiding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Avery v. Maine State Prison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-v-maine-state-prison-mesuperct-2013.