David F. Paquette v. Department of Corrections

2020 ME 37
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedMarch 31, 2020
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 ME 37 (David F. Paquette v. Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David F. Paquette v. Department of Corrections, 2020 ME 37 (Me. 2020).

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2020 ME 37 Docket: Cum-19-403 Submitted On Briefs: February 26, 2020 Decided: March 31, 2020

Panel: MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.

DAVID F. PAQUETTE

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Because events in the Superior Court have overtaken this appeal,

we dismiss it as moot.

[¶2] David F. Paquette, an inmate in the custody of the Maine

Department of Corrections, filed an action in the Superior Court (Cumberland

County) against the Department. The court (Warren, J.) treated the action as a

petition for review of agency action. See 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001-11008 (2018);

M.R. Civ. P. 80C. After the court issued an order requiring Paquette to show

cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to serve the

Department pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 11003(1), Paquette filed documents

showing unsuccessful attempts to serve the Attorney General but not the

Department itself. 2

[¶3] The court dismissed Paquette’s petition for insufficient service of

process. Paquette then filed a document making additional assertions

regarding his service efforts. The court treated that filing as an appeal.

[¶4] After the appeal was docketed in the Law Court, Paquette filed in

the trial court a motion to serve the Department by mail and documents

asserting that the Department had acknowledged receipt of process. We

entered an order that suspended M.R. App. P. 3(b) to permit the court to act

on Paquette’s assertions. The court revisited the service issue and granted

Paquette leave to effect alternate service. See M.R. Civ. P. 4(g).

[¶5] The court has thus negated its dismissal of Paquette’s petition,

rendering this appeal moot. Cf. E. Me. Med. Ctr. v. Me. Health Care Fin. Comm’n,

601 A.2d 99, 101 (Me. 1992).

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

David F. Paquette, appellant pro se

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Jillian R. O’Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Corrections

Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2018-510 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Eastern Maine Medical Center v. Maine Health Care Finance Commission
601 A.2d 99 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 ME 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-f-paquette-v-department-of-corrections-me-2020.