STATE OF M.A.ll'ili SUPERIOR CO{JRT KENNEBEC, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-11-24 ,
/!r::l
A'141Al - K£ t) - {-> ("I 3
DAL'l"A CRA1'Lt: Y, Petitioner
v. ORDER 0~ RCLE SOC APPEAL
PATRICIA BARl'lBAIG, et als., Respondents.
Presently before the Court is Pe~itioner Dana Craney's 1 SOC Appeal of a Final Agency Action against \:Varden Patricia Barnhart of1he M:::.ine State Prison, \Varren, and other officers of said prison and ofthe Maine Department of Corrections challenging the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections' ("DOC" or the "Department") denial of several grievances brought by Petitioner Craney claiming that the DOC failed to acccmmodate him as a Native American practitioner. Pei:itioner Craney chims that he has exhausted every administrative remedy within the DOC.
Prior to this 80C Petiticn, Petitioner Craney requested a temporarJ restraining order pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 6.5(a) to be afforded the right to practice his religion under the First Amendment, vvhic 11 was denied by rhe Superior Court on July 8, 2011. Petitioner Craney also filed a Motion to Reconsider, ',vhir.:h was denied by the Superior Court on December 21, 2011. On April 5, 2012, the Office of the Attorney General !l.led jointly a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion to Enforce Payment of Filing Fee, and Motion to Stay, which the Superior Court granted in part ' Petitioner Craney is representin€ hirnself in this o.ction.
on April 17, 2012, thereby ordering Petitioner Crane;' to pay the sum of 568.20 from his client account, and to make fc1rther monthly payments of 20% of the preceding montl:J' s deposits until tl.e entire filing fee of $l5C :s paid. The Superior Coun: stayed the Pe~itioner' s appeal umil the initial payment is received. A subsequent Motion to Dismiss was grac-ned on June 7, 2012, but la~er vacated on June 22, 2012. On July 25, 2012, the Petitioner filed his brief in suppon of his Petitioner brought pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Petitioner Craney's initially appealed the DOC's decisions on three speci±1c issues:
1. the adequacy of space a~lotted to Native ~L\merican practition.::rs to perform smudging and other prayer ceremonies; 2
2. the frequency of sweat lodge ceremonies; and 3. restriction on the use of tobacco for ceren:onial purposes.
Petitioner Craney, with regard to the frequency of sweat lodge ceremonie\ asserted that tr.ey should be held "weekly, monthly, quarterly," and on the soLstices and equinoxes, among other times. He also acknowledges that volunteers qualified to cond:Jct the ceremonies are required, but are frequently unavailable.
According to the findings of the prison's grievance review office:, group relig:ious services must be conducted by approved vohmteers, and only when suci1 volenteers are asailable. Warden Barnhart denied Petitioner Craney's appeal, stating:
It is tme that there are a few outside volunteers that are recognized <md/or available to conduct ceremonial activities for the Native kmerican Group.
Ceremonial practices are dictated by religious leaders and I am satist1ed th2:t we are making reasonable efforts to allow prisoners to practice their religious b-sliefs to the extent possible.
2 Petitioner Craney subsequently withdrew his appeal as to the issue of proper shelter ar.d spc.ce allo~mem for smudgmg and prayer ceremonies.
3
At the B.nal appeal level of the grievance procedure, the Commissioner denied the grievance without furthe.:: comment.
As to t}-1e third issue, the restrictions on the use cftoba.cco, the g:ievance review officer referred to a:-1 earlier letter to Petitioner Craney and others from Deputy Warden Leida Dardis, noting the pris·on's policy of allowing a qualified volc:.r:i:eer (a pipe carrier) to bring a small amoun: of tobacco into the prison for use in ~he ceremony, and tc take the remair"ing tobacco '..-lpon leaving the prison. The grievance review of:fic~r also noted that when a supply oftobacco had been previously st'Jred at the prison, the privilege was abused. The \Varden upheld this firs;: level decision without further comment, and the Com::nissioner, at the third level, affirmed, stating: "[t]hc presence oftob&cco in correctional facilities is a major issue, and it is a privilege fer it to be used at all as there are other non-tobacco medicines that may be substituted in native
. "
ceremomes.
DISCUSSION
The Court reviews the DOC's decision for errors oflaw, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Beauchene v. Dep 't ofHealth and Human Servs., 2009 y[E 24, ~ 11, 965 A2d 866. Acd1tionally, per 5 M.RS.A. § 11007(4), the Court may reverse or modify the agency's decision or:Jy if it i~:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory· provisions;
(2) I;, excess of the statuwry authority of the c:ge:1cy;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by bias or error oflaw;
(5) ensupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.
The Court must also give "considerable deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules, regulations, c.nd procedures, and will not set aside the agency's findings unless the rule or
4
regulation pla:nly compels a c<Jntrary result." Bea:1chene, 2009 ?vfE 24, ~ 11, 965 A.2d 866 (internal citation orr:itted). The Cour1 2.lso ack.nowiedges that when it acts in an appellate capaci·cy, as it does here, it may not "rm.ke facrua~ findings independePt of those made by the agency. " Suzman v. Comm 'r, Dep 'r of Health & Human Sen.'s., 2005 ::ME 80, fi 24, 876 A.2d 29.
Petitioner Craney's first argument is that the named Respondents have not afforded him access to a proper facility ir~ order to practice daily, weekly, and monthly Native American religious beliefs and ceremonies, speciticalJy, that proper shelter for such practices is not provided as is required fJr pra;1er and smudg1ng ceremon:es. The Code of Maine Rules expressly provides for the accommcdcJioE of prisoners ·;,vho y,:ish to practice a panicular religion:
The Deparcment shall accommodme any pnsoner who expresses a desire to practice a religion of rheir choice provided this does not present a threat to safety, security, or orderly management oithe facility. In addition, the Departinent may not place a substantial burden on c. prisoner's r:ractice of religion, regardless of whether a particular practice is considered essential, except in furtherance of a compelling state interest, such as safety, security, or orderly management of the facility·, and only by the least restrictive means available.
C3-201 C.M.R. ch. 10, § 24.3(JII) (2009). See also 34-A M.R.S.A. § 3048 (providirg: "~t]he commissioner shall adopt mles that provide for the accommodation of any prisoner who expresses a desire to :rrcctice a rc::igior, of rhe prisoner's choice as long as the practice does not present a threat to the safety, secur,ty cr orderly n:.:mageme:c.t of the facility .... "). Additionally, the C .M.R also requires ::hat:
[t]he religious services program shall prov:de prisoners, where feasible and not contrary to safety, security, or orderly management of the facility, with the opportunity to participate in group religious ceremonies ... , and special religious programming provided by approved Jaith group volunteers from the community.
Each facility shall have space and equipment for the provision of the religious serv1 ces program..
03-201 C.M.R. ch. 10, § 24.3C'v1)(A)(l) (2009) (er:;phasis added).
The Respondents :1ssert that these a;-e cecessa:-y regulations, a:1d that while the infrequent availability of qualified volunteers is regrettable, it does :1ot indicate DOC interference with the Petitioner's reiigi ous prac~:ces. Because N arive ~:Unerican practi~:io:1ers depend upon the availability of outside volunteers, there is little the prison ,:an do to increase the number of sweat lodge ceremonies. There are also no grounds to suggest that prison officials have, as Petiticner Craney alleges, wrongfully restricted the Petitioner and other Native A..mericc.CJ. .practitioners from attending religious ceremonies.
With regard to the tobacco use issue, udess such use is incorporated 3S part of a religious ceremony, possession of tobacco by prisoners in a State correctional facility is prohibited See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 757-A (indicating that a person is guilty oftrafficking tobacco if"[t]hat person is confined in an adult correctional facility that has banned the use of tobacco or ro:Jacco products by prisoners and the person inten~ionally obtains or possesses tobacco or ~obacco products."). However, the Department has vvorked to accommoda~e J\at:ve )Jnerican practitioners by creating a specific exception to allow for the introduction of tob1cco to the facility by a volunteer conducting a religious ceremony, "provided any unu5ed portions or the [tobacco] 2-re removed from the facility by the volunteer after the completion ofi]le ceremony." 03-201 C.?v1.R. ch. 10, § 24.3(VI)(E)(l) (2009).
The Department regulations control, and in many cases prohibi: the use of tobacco o;;.
prison grouncs for security reasons, having fJtmd that the trafficking of tobacco creates a substantial security risk. Despite this, the Department has worked to accommodate Native ~A.merican practitioners. One such was of protecting the sacred role of tobacco in Native American religious ceremonies is by prc,hibiting the storage of tobacco products at the prison facility. The Department reasonably found that limiting the use of tobacco to tobacco brought in
s
6
by reLgious volunteers achieves religious goe1ls, a:r~d :r,elps assure there is no trafficking of tobacco products at the faci1iry. Such a regulation demonstrates the prison honors the sacrec role of tobacco to Native A...merican practitioners, and thc:t trafficking therein has a denigrating etfect. The Court agrees with the Department that denying Petitioner Craney unrestrained access to tobacco does not interfere with the prc.ctice of his since1ely held :.-eligious beliefs.
Irc addition to the above discussion, the Respor'.dents argue that with regard to the issue of tob2.cco use, the Petitioner's appeal on that matter wc.s not timely filed. The Department P"-ovides that it issued a final decis10n on Grievance ll-MSP-05 on Marcil 10, 2011, and
Fetitioiler Crane:; cid not file his appeal U~'1til Apnl :22, 2011, whict: is outside the time limit for
3
filing an appeal of an administrative decision See 5 M.R.S.A § 11 002(3); Fournier v. Dep 't of
Carr., 2009 ME 112, ~ 2, 983 A.2d 403. However, even though Respondents are correct in assening the untimely t11ing of the tobacco use a:1d possession issue, the Court still includes the above analysis of the pertinent C.J'vl.R. provisions so the Order retlects the Court's consideration of the issue.
The Court iast addresses Petitior:er Craney's all .~gations ofviolations of his state and federal constitutional rights 4 Responden!s assen that Petitioner Craney r.~as failed to bring any argumer:.ts under any laws--statutory or case law-that afford protec~ion to an inmate's religious
3 In respons.: to L~e Respondents' a'6'Jment :-egarding the timeliness of Petitioner Craney's filing of his Rule SOC Pet:tion, t~e Court observes that as to Grievai1ce 11-}viS:P-15, filed by Petnioner Craney complaining of improper sweat !edge use and frequency, a final decisicn was iss1.:ed )_)v Coi':lmissioner Ponte on March 22, 2011. Hm.vever, tr,e Commissioner's final decisior: with regard to Grievance l1-tv1SP-05, in which Petitioner C:-aney asked to be allowed to use tobacco for purposes of prayer. was denied on lvfarch l 0, 2011. Because Petitioner Craney filed his Petition pursuant to Rule 80C on April 22, 2011, it was timely fi~ed only as to G!ievance 11-MSP-15, but not as to Grievance 1 l -MSP-05. The Court agrees w1th Respondents that 9S to che issue of tobacco use and possession, it is barred due to untimelv filinz . •t The Cot.:l"': notes that Petiti~ner Caney iid not fr'!me his gr,evai'1Ce as prec1sely as might usually be expecteci
regarding a cognizable claim under the First .t.....mendment to eiLi}er the State or Federa1 constimtion. bstead, Petitioner Craney asserts that he and other Native American pracntioners vv-e::-e denied access to gather for proper scared sweat lodge ceremories. The Cour:, for p11rposes oft~is 0:-cier, characterizes Petitioner Craney's grievance according to F;rst A~me"ciment c:r::.alysis, and also movides analysis as if Petitioner Craney had alleged a violation of L1.e Religim:s Lmd l_Tse and Instimtionalized ?ersc::1s Act ("Fl.. tTP A"), c~2 US. C. § 2000cc(1 ).
7
practices. See e.g., Religious Land Use and Ins:; ':u~ionalized Persons / .. ct ("RLUIP A"), 42
protects prisoners whose re~igious exel·cise has te;:;n substa:J.tially burd;;ned by an unintended or incidental effect of a religiously-Eeutral govemme::t acticn or rule of general applicati.:Jn.''). Regardless, though, since Petitioner C:-aney fails tc make out a claim chc.n his righr to pnctice his religion was violated under eit~1er the First Amendmeat or RLUIPA, the Coun finds that Petitioner Craney fails in that regard while still addressing the rights generally afforded to prisoners under the First Amendment and, tG some ,jegree, the RLUIP A..
Prisoners clearly retain the prot:::ctions affc:·ieC: tc t 11em by the First Amendment, and must be provided with a reasonable opportunity :o pusue th-eir religion. See U.S. CoNST. amend. I; Cru:: v. Beta, 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972) (safeguarding various :First Amendment rights of incarcerated persons, such as the right to petitic:1 the government for redress of grievances). Necessarily, however, in order to auhere to valid penological concerns underlying the correctional system, incarceration requires f1e Limitation or in some :I:stances the withdrawal of many rights and privileges available to noe-pr-isr..ners. See 0 'I om v. Estat;;: cfShabazz, 482 U.S. 34:2, 348 (1987) (acknowledging that incarcerati.c,1 results in a ci::-cumscription ofFirst Amendment freedoms). Prison authoriti~s may regulate a prisoner's exercise of religion vvhen faced with legitimate institutional concerns, so long as such regulation does not amount to an unreasonable interference with a prisoner's exerc ~e of his or her religious beliefs Se2 ?ell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974) (recognizi:-'3 that "challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First .Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system .... ").
8
Considering this orescribed analysis, the Court finds that the DOC has engaged in appropriate burden 2.nd benefit weighing. The DOC has managed to institute reason2.ble regulations vvhile at the same time prov1ding for the exercise of a signiEcant range of religious beliefs and practices. The record reflects ample correspondence betv;een prison of±icials, inc~uding Commissioner Joseph Ponte and Prison Chaplai:1 \Valter Foster, and the Petitioner
(along with other undersigned fellm;v practitio~ers\ caret":..llly detailing the prison's policy wi~h respect to Native American issues and the reasons for implementing any restrictions.
A review of tl1e record indic2.tes that tl1e Depar1:r:~ent did not arbitrarily formulate overly restrictive religious practice policies out of a need f'Jr convenience; the Department has clearly and respectfully addressed the needs ofNative A...rnerican inmates even when faced with legitimate security concerns. The prison has, perhaps in light of the threa: of judicial actions such as this, articulated a rational rela.tions~ip betweee the restrictions of which Petitioner Craney complains and a legitimate penological objective, which entirely satisfies the burdeu borne by the Department. See 0 'Lone, 482 U.S. at 350 (addressing the burden imposed or: prison officials to disprove the availability of altemacive methods of acco:::nmodating a prisoner's constitutional complaint).
Turning to the RLulPA, 42 T~:.s.c. § 2000cc(l) provides:
No govemmer:t shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institt1tion, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution-
(A) is in furthe::ance of a compelling governmental ir.terest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering tb.at compelling governmental interest.
Federal courts have fJund that a "substantial burden" exists where:
9
1) a follower is forced to choose bet-seen following the precepts of his religion and forfeiting benefits othervvi se generally available to other inmates versus abandoning one of the precepts of his religion in order to receive a b<::nefit; OR
2) the govemmer1t puts s~bstantial pressure Oll an adherent to substantially modify his behavior and to violme his beliefs.
Washington v. KZe;vn, 497 .F.3d 272, 2.80 (3d Cir. 2007). Last, a claim under RIJJIPA is comprised of four elements.
On the first two elements, (1) that: an instimtionalized person's religious exercise has been burdened and (2) that the burden is substa."ltial, the plaintiff bears the bvrden of prcof. Once a plai:r.tiff has established that his religious exercise has been st:bstantially burdened, the onus shifts to the government to show (3) that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and ( 4) that the burden is the least restrictive means of achieving thc.t compelling interest
Cookson v. Comm 'r, Afaine Dep 't ofCorr., 2012 WL 32378, at *9 (D. rvle. Jan. 4, 2012).
Courts are also instructed to apply to RLL1PA analysis "due deference to the experience and expertise cf prison and j2cil administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to ma,ntain good order, security and discipline, consistent wi;:h consideration of costs and limited rescu1-ces." Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723 (2005) (i::1temal citation omitted). The Respondents correctly argue that g~ving due deference to the judgment of prison officials, the restrictions imposed en Petitioner Cra.ney do not amount to an RLlJIPA violation.
Petitioner Cmney' s religious exercise has not been unreasonably burdened, and has arguably not b~en burdened at all. The analysis-per the application of the four factors described in Ccokson--must end tbere, for if the Court finds the Petitioner has not been unduly burdened, t.~ere ::-allows no "substantial burden" analysis, and therefore the burden does not shift to the government to prove either a compelling governmental interest or that its method embodies the least restrictive means to achieving 1hat compelling 1nterest Despite this, the prison has still made svveat lodge ceremonies available to Petitioner Craney and his fellow
10
Native AJnerican inmates. and th,-::re exists a significa11t coopromise when the alternative to accommodation is the complete oan on both the ceremonies and tobac.:::o use, albeit in a controlled fashion as described above.
The entry will be:
The decisions of the Department of CorrectiQJ15 denying Petitioner Craney's grievances are AFFIR~IED.,.
(\
, l/~-L ~__.-/·
___]______ ----
DATE SGPERIOR COURT JUSTI~
2 _2 _1_ll_ _
Date Filed _ _ _4_1_ Kennebec DocketNo. ________A_P_-_1_1_-_ 2 _4 ___________
County
Action ___P_e_t_1._·t_1._·o_n_7F7o-=r_R_e_v_i_e_w_______ J. Murphy soc
Dana Craney vs. Patricia Barnhart, Warden, et al. Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
Dana Craney, Pro Se James E. Fortin, AAG Maine State Prison 6 State House Station 807 Cushing Road Augusta, ME 04333-0006 Warren, ME 04864
Date of Entry
4/26/11 Petition For Judicial Review Of Final Agency Action, Application To Proceed Without Payment Of Fees, Indigency Affidavit, Certificate of account, Motion For Extension Of Time, filed 4/22/11. s/Craney, ProSe
4/29/11 ORDER, Nivison, J. (4/28/ll)
The filing fee is waived. The applicant is to attempt service by mail with acknowledgement.
Copy to Plaintiff.
5/5/11 Affidavit, filed. s/Craney, Pro Se Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, filed. s/Craney, Pro Se
5/18/11 Certified mail receipt with return service made upon Patricia Barnhart on 5/13/11
Certified mail receipt with return service made upon Walter Foster on 5/13/11
Certified mail receipt with return service made upon Robert Costigan on 5/13/11
Certified mail receipt with return service made upon James O'Farrell on 5/13/11
Certified mail receipt with return service made upon Leida Dardis on on 5/13/11
Certified mail receipt with return service made upon Joseph Ponte on 5/13/11
7/12/11 ORDER, Murray, J. (7/8/11)
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is hereby denied.
Copies to parties
8/8/11 Certified Mail Receipt served upon Leida Dardis, Joseph Ponte, Patricia Barnhart, Walter Foster, James O'Farrell, Robert Costigan, Motion to Reconsider, filed. s/Craney, Pro Se (8/5/11)
Date of Page 2 Docket No. AP-11-24 Entry
8/9/11 Certified Mail Receipt for service on Joseph Ponte, Commissioner, Department of Corrections; James O'Farrell; Robert Costigan, PAC;
Walter Foster, Chaplain; Leida Dardis, Deputy Warden; Patricia Barnhart, Warden.
10/4/11 Motion to Partial With-Draw Without Prejudice, filed. s/Craney, Pro Se
12/28/11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER, Murray, J. (12/21/11)
Accordingly, the Motion to Reconsider is hereby, DENIED.
Copy to party.
2/3/12 ORDER, Murphy, J. (2/2/12)
Motion to withdraw (Partial) certain requests made in Petition regarding "proper shelter" and prayer ceremonies is granted.
Copy to Petitioner.
3/27/12 Notice and Briefing Schedule issued.
Copy to parties.
4/12/12 Notice of Appearance, filed 4/6/12. s/Fortin, AAG Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Enforce Payment of Filing Fee and Motion to Stay, filed 4/6/12. s/Fortin, AAG
4/12/12 Response to Respondents Motion To Dismiss, and Motion To Enforce Payment Of Filing Fee and Motion To Stay, filed 4/10/12.
s/Craney, Pro Se (w/ copy of letter to AAG Fortin dated 4/6/12)
4/17/12 ORDER, Murphy, J.
Respondents' Motion to Enforce Payment of Filing Fee and Stay is GRANTED. Petitioner is orde.red to pay $68.20 from his client account and to make further monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's deposits until the entire filing fee of $150 is paid. The appeal will be stayed until the initial payment is received.
Copy to Petitioner and AAG Fortin.
4/19/12 Certified Mail receipt, delivered 4/10/12, no signature, addressed to James E. Fortin, AAG, filed 4/17/12. s/Craney, Pro Se
4/23/12 Letter requesting notification when initial filing fee paid and asking whether the court will issue revised briefing schedule, filed 4/20/12.
s/Fortin, AAG
5/15/12 Motion to Dismiss, filed. s/Fortin, AAG
6/7 I 12 ORDER, Murphy, J.
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.
Copy to Petitioner and AAG Fortin
6/22/12 Payment of $68.20, Money Transfer receipt dated 5/19/12, Motion for Enlargement of Time Once Stay is Lifted, Answer on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, filed 6/11/12. s/Craney, Pro Se
6/22/12 Trust Account Statement, filed 6/11/12. s/Craney, ?ro Se Payment of $41.80, filed 6/11/12. s/Craney, Pro Se
6/22/12 ORDER, Murphy, J.
Order on Motion to Dismiss is VACATED. Court advised Mr. Craney did pay the fee but prison did not mail it timely to the Court.
Copy to Petitio.uer and AAG Fortin
Dana Craney v. Patricia Barnhart, et al.
Date of Page 3 Docket No. AP-11-24 Entry
6/28/12 Agency Record, filed 6/26/12. Request for revised briefing schedule.
s/Fortin, AAG
7/5/12 Notice And Briefing Schedule, issued 7/2/12.
Copy to Petitioner and AAG Fortin
7/18/12 Letter and two Trust Account statements, filed 7/9/12. s/Craney, ProSe Payment of $11.89, filed 7/9/12.
7/25/12 Payment of $28.11 received on 7/19/12 from DOC.
8/1/12 Petitioners Brief and attachments, filed 7/25/12. s/Craney, Pro Se Original grievance letters, filed 7/25/12. s/Craney, ProSe
8/10/12 Motion to Supplement Record, filed. s/Fortin, AAG 8/17/12 Brief of the Respondents, filed. s/Fortin, AAG 8/29/12 Reply to Respondents Brief, filed 8/28/12. s/Craney, ProSe
9/10/12 ORDER, Murphy, J.
The motion is GRANTED. The record is supplemented with certified copies of grievance /111-MS'P-05 and /111-MSP-15.
Copies to atty/party
9/18/12 Supplement to Record, filed 8/10/12.
11/6/12 Oral argument scheduled for 11/29/12.
List mailed to Petitioner and AAG Fortin on 11/2/12.
11/7/12 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ordered by J. Murphy on 11/6/12.
Attested copies to Kennebec S.O.
11/19/12 Letter informing the court of sargery and requesting continuance of 11/29/12 hearing, filed. s/Craney, Pro Se
11/21/12 ORDER, Murphy, J.
Granted. Set for Rebruary or March 2013.
Copy to Petitioner and AAG Fortin
2/21/13 Letter informing the Court that Petitioner is able to appear by writ and requesting the case be scheduled, filed. s/Craney, Pro Se
3/12/13 Oral argument scheduled for 4/4/13.
List mailed to Petitioner and AAG Fortin.
3/20/13 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ordered by J. Nivison on 3/13/13.
Attested copies to Kennebec S.O.
4/10/13 Oral argument held 4/4/13. J. Michaela Murphy presiding.
Dana Craney, Pro Se and James Fortin, AAG Tape 1657, Index 2785-3416.
Under advisement
6/6/13 ORDER ON RULE SOC APPEAL, Murphy, J.
The decisions of the Department of Corrections denying Petitioner Craney's grievances are AFFIRMED.
Copy to Petitioner and AAG Fortin.
Copy to repositories.