Opinion
2021-126
11-19-2021
George Woods* v. State of Vermont
In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.
APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Caledonia Unit, Civil Division CASE NO. 106-7-20 Cacv Trial Judge: Mary Miles Teachout
ENTRY ORDER
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his civil complaint challenging his furlough revocation. On appeal, he argues that the court erred in dismissing certain defendants, in failing to review the revocation decision, and in concluding that his case was moot. We affirm.
The record reveals the following facts. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) and in April 2020 he was released on conditional-reentry furlough. He was subsequently returned to prison after his wife reported that he had abused and harassed her in violation of conditions prohibiting such behavior. Following a furlough-revocation hearing, plaintiff was found guilty, and the case was referred to case staffing to determine his case plan and future eligibility for furlough. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal from the revocation decision. While his appeal was pending, the DOC made a case staffing decision that plaintiff would receive a one-year interrupt from furlough eligibility and be required to complete risk-reduction programming. Meanwhile, plaintiffs appeal was successful, and a new administrative hearing was ordered. Following a new hearing, plaintiff was again found guilty.
Case staffing is the terminology used by the DOC to refer to the DOC's decision regarding what programming should be addressed in the community or the facility related to furlough eligibility.
Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies and then filed this civil complaint under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 alleging that the case staffing should not have taken place while his appeal was pending and that the DOC should have conducted a new case staffing after the second administrative hearing. He also challenged the outcome of the case staffing decision and sought $300 per day for wrongful imprisonment. He named eleven parties in the suit but only served the State.
The State moved to dismiss on several grounds in January 2021. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs claims against the defendants other than the State for lack of service and dismissing plaintiffs challenge to the merits of the case staffing decision on the ground that it was a programming decision unreviewable under Rule 75. As to the claim that the DOC could not make a case staffing decision while his administrative appeal was pending, the court concluded that this was a matter of procedure that was appropriate for Rule 75 review. The court indicated that if the procedure was invalid, the remedy would be a remand to the DOC to conduct a new case staffing, not a release from confinement.
Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider. While that motion was pending, in March 2021, the DOC conducted a new case staffing. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss the case as moot, concluding that because a new case staffing had been completed there was no further relief it could grant. The court also determined that plaintiffs motion to reconsider was moot. Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, plaintiff is self-represented and has submitted lengthy handwritten filings with this Court. We recite his arguments as best as we can discern them. He first contends that the trial court improperly dismissed the defendants other than the State, asserting that they were properly served or were joined. The trial court did not err in dismissing the defendants other than the State for lack of service. Under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)(1)(ii), the court may dismiss claims against defendants if those defendants have not been served within ninety days of filing suit. When the court dismissed the claims against these defendants, the case had been pending for more than seven months without service. Although plaintiff alleges that they were properly served, plaintiff did not file proof of service for those defendants within ninety days and therefore the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims against them.
Plaintiff next argues that neither case-staffing decision was supported by sufficient evidence and challenges the resulting case-staffing decisions. The trial court dismissed these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that these administrative decisions were not subject to Rule 75 review. We review the dismissal de novo. Clark v. Menard, 2018 VT 68, ¶ 5, 208 Vt. 11. This Court has held that DOC programming decisions are within the broad discretion of the DOC and do not fall within the scope of Rule 75 review. Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT 72, ¶ 11, 190 Vt. 245. The DOC's decisions relating to furlough are one such programming decision that is within the discretion of the DOC and for which there is no statutory right to review. See, e.g., 28 V.S.A. § 808(a) (providing DOC Commissioner with discretion to furlough inmate). Consequently, we conclude that these decisions were not subject to review under Rule 75 and these claims were properly dismissed.
Plaintiffs final argument is that his due process rights were violated by the failure of various officials to follow DOC procedures throughout the furlough revocation and grievance processes, and specifically that the DOC should not have conducted a case staffing while his administrative appeal was pending. For this Court to exercise its jurisdiction, there must be a live controversy between the parties. Chase v. State, 2008 VT 107, ¶ 11, 184 Vt. 430. An issue becomes moot "if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief." Id. We review de novo the legal question of whether the case is moot. See Paige v. State, 2017 VT 54, ¶ 6, 205 Vt. 287 (explaining that court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo). In this case, plaintiffs claims are moot because there is no further relief that we can provide to plaintiff. Even if we were to conclude that the DOC failed to comply with its own procedures by conducting a case staffing while plaintiffs administrative appeal was pending, the sole avenue for relief would be to direct the DOC to conduct a new case staffing. Insofar as the DOC has already conducted a new case staffing, there is no additional relief we can provide to plaintiff and the matter is moot.
On a final note, we address several motions that plaintiff filed during the pendency of this appeal seeking discovery. In response to one motion for discovery, in October 2021, this Court issued an order denying plaintiff's request and explaining that the record on appeal is limited to "the documents, data, and exhibits" filed in the superior court. V.R.A.P. 10(a). Plaintiff subsequently filed additional motions asking this Court to reconsider the denial of discovery and seeking to compel discovery. Because this Court's review is limited to the record established in the trial court, there is no right to discovery on appeal and plaintiff's motions are denied.
Affirmed.
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice, Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice, William D. Cohen, Associate Justice