Case Title: Ladd v. Valerio

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Ladd v. Valerio (2003-522); 178 Vt. 614; 883 A.2d 764

2005 VT 81

[Filed 13-Jul-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 81

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-522

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 2005

  Eugene F. Ladd	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
  Matthew Valerio	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 0103-03 CnC

                                                Trial Judge:  Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Eugene Ladd appeals a superior court order dismissing his
  complaint challenging the Defender General's authority to conduct a merits
  review of all requests for post-conviction relief, V.R.C.P. 75 complaints,
  and habeas corpus petitions filed by pro se litigants.  Because appellant
  does not allege that he was denied counsel in a particular case as a result
  of the challenged policy, we conclude that he lacks standing to seek
  declaratory relief in this case and dismiss the appeal.

       ¶  2.  In December 2001, the Defender General issued Prisoners
  Rights Directive 113001.wpd, which establishes a procedure under which the
  Prisoner's Rights Office (PRO) reviews incoming V.R.C.P. 75 complaints,
  post-conviction relief claims, and habeas corpus petitions for merit.  In
  January 2003, appellant filed a Rule 75 complaint in the superior court
  challenging the Defender General's authority to issue the directive.  He
  argued that: (1) 13 V.S.A. § 5233 requires the Defender General to
  represent a needy petitioner in any post-conviction proceeding the prisoner
  believes is appropriate; and (2) the directive issued in violation of the
  Vermont Administrative Procedures Act.  As such, appellant's complaint does
  not allege that he was improperly denied counsel in a particular case, but
  rather is a general challenge to the Defender General's statutory authority
  to issue the directive. 

       ¶  3.  Every petition for declaratory relief must be rooted in an
  actual controversy between the parties; otherwise, the plaintiff lacks
  standing to sue, and the courts have no jurisdiction to grant the relief
  sought.  Town of Cavendish v. Vt. Pub. Power Supply Auth., 141 Vt. 144,
  147,