Holland v. Department of Corrections

8 Fla. Supp. 2d 183
CourtState of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
DecidedSeptember 14, 1984
DocketCase No. 84-1788R
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 183 (Holland v. Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holland v. Department of Corrections, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 183 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION

ROBERT T. BENTON II, Hearing Officer.

This matter came on for final hearing in Raiford, Florida at the Union Correctional Institution on June 18, 1984. The Division of Administrative Hearings received a transcript of proceedings on August 13, 1984, and respondent’s proposed order on August 24, 1984.

These proceedings began with the filing, on May 14, 1984, of a petition for determination of the invalidity of existing rules, addressed to Rule 33-3.07, Florida Administrative Code, to respondent’s Policy [184]*184and Procedure Directive 4.07.02, and to Union Correctional Institution Policy Memorandum 82-14.

ISSUE

Whether grievance procedures set forth in the provisions challenged are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of respondent’s discretion? Whether the policy and procedure directive and policy memorandum should be declared invalid as rules?

FINDINGS OF FACT

At the various institutions in which respondent houses some 29,000 prisoners, about 8,000 grievances are acted on annually. In addition, departmental personnel in Tallahassee decide 2,000 grievances annually, of which all but two or three hundred are appeals. Nineteen percent of departmental decisions on the merits of grievances are in favor of the inmate.

Not every grievance has been handled in strict adherence to every particular of rule, policy directive and policy memorandum, nor are the requirements these documents lay down always identical. The hearing officer ruled that the merits of any specific grievance proceeding were not relevant. On one occasion, the correctional officer complained of in a grievance was the officer to whom investigation of the grievance was assigned.

At Union Correctional Institution, Dan Williams deals with 200 to 250 grievances monthly, turning back grievances that are not signed, dated or concise, or which do not reflect resort to informal measures. Occasionally, Mr. Williams drafts a preliminary response on the merits or “combine[s] . . . [an investigative] report . .' . with the directives and the institutional operating procedures and, based on a collection of those two, . . . draft[s] a preliminary response.” (T. 189) Ordinarily, a superior signs the responses Mr. Williams drafts.

Petitioners are inmates at Union Correctional Institution. Joe Lewis Holland and Douglas L. Adams had grievances pending at the time of the hearing. Carl Cribbs and John Russell have filed grievances in the past, but the evidence did now show them to have filed any grievance not already disposed of. Petitioner Rufu did not testify at hearing.

Petitioners do not complain of the procedures attending promulgation of Rule 33-3.07, Florida Administrative Code, which provides:

Inmate Grievance Procedure. The purpose of this procedure is to provide an inmate with a channel for the administrative settlement of the legitimate grievance. A grievance is a formal complaint concern[185]*185ing an incident, policy, or condition with the institution or the Department of Corrections. Most valid grievances can be resolved quickly through direct contact with the staff of the institution who are responsible for the particular area of the problem. Inmates should be encouraged to use routine informal remedies prior to initiating a formal grievance. However, when an inmate feels he has sufficient reason to submit an official formal grievance, he should obtain a copy of the request form for administrative remedy or appeal; all facts should be listed accordingly. Only one grievance per form can be initiated.
(1) The grievance complaint must be filed no later than 30 calendar days from the date on which the basis of the complaint occurred, unless it is clearly demonstrated by the inmate that it was not feasible to file within such a period.
(2) The Assistant Superintendent of the institution will have the grievance complaint logged and will have a receipt sent to the inmate. He may handle the grievance personally or he may designate appropriate staff members to investigate and/or respond. If a staff member investigates and responds, he too will sign the form along with the Assistant Superintendent. The response should state clearly why the grievance is approved or disapproved. If approved, it should state what action will be taken to correct the problem. One copy will be placed in the inmate file and two copies will be returned to the inmate advising of action taken.
(3) When an inmate feels that he may be adversely affected by submission of his grievance at the institutional level because of its sensitive nature he may mail his grievance directly to the Secretary. He must clearly indicate a valid reason for not initially bringing his complaint to the attention of the institutional staff. Grievances of this type may be sealed in an envelope by the inmate and processed through routine institutional mail channels.
(4) Institutional officials will have up to 30 days, including holidays and weekends from the receipt of the grievance to take action and respond to the inmate. When the grievance is, in the opinion of the Assistant Superintendent, of an emergency nature, a reply should be made as soon as possible.
(5) If the inmate feels his or her grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved at the institutional level, he or she may appeal to the Secretary. If the inmate files a formal grievance form to the Secretary the factual basis for appeal must be clearly stated in Part A and a copy of the original grievance and response at the institutional [186]*186level attached. If the inmate fails to provide a reason for appeal or attach a copy of his institutional grievance and response or the Secretary feels that the reason supplied is not adequate, the appeal must be returned to the inmate and reasons for return will be specified in Part B. The Secretary or his designated representative will have a receipt sent to the inmate. He will cause the appeal to be investigated and will have up to 30 days, including weekends and holidays from receipt of the appeal form to make a response. A copy of the response to the inmate will be sent to the Superintendent and a copy filed in the Central Office. The Superintendent’s copy will be reviewed and filed in the Institution. The time limit cannot be met either at the institutional or departmental level, the time limit may be extended for a reasonable period not to exceed thirty (30) days. If this action is taken the complainant will be notified in writing with the time of extension noted.
(6) A record must be made of each grievance or appeal and should contain at least the following information: Inmate name, prison number, date of receipt, subject of grievance or appeal, disposition of the grievance or appeal, and date of disposition. A copy of this record should be filed monthly in the Superintendent’s or the Secretary’s office.
(7) Inmates can be assured that no action will be taken against them resulting from submitting a grievance unless they knowingly and intentionally make a statement which is proved false pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding.

They contend that the rule does not afford a neutral, detached fact finder, and is arbitrary and capricious for that and other reasons.

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

Related

FLORIDA DEPT., OF OFFENDER REHAB. v. Jerry
353 So. 2d 1230 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Agrico Chemical Co. v. STATE, ETC.
365 So. 2d 759 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Fla. Supp. 2d 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-department-of-corrections-fladivadminhrg-1984.