Title: Loveland v. Gorczyk

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Loveland v. Gorczyk (2000-495); 173 Vt. 501; 786 A.2d 418

[Filed 07-Nov-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-495

                               MAY TERM, 2001

Michael D. Loveland	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
John Gorczyk and Kathleen Lanman       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 294-12-99 Oscv

                                                Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

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

       Plaintiff Michael Loveland appeals from a superior court grant of
  summary judgment to  defendants, John Gorczyk and Kathleen Lanman, in a
  case involving review of a prison discipline  decision.  Plaintiff contends
  that defendant Lanman, superintendent of the Newport correctional 
  facility, failed to notify him of her appeal decision within the 30 day
  limit set forth in Department of  Corrections (DOC) Directive 410.01(I)(2),
  and, as a result, he is entitled to expungement of the  disciplinary
  conviction.  The superior court ruled that the directive does not require
  notice to the  inmate within 30 days and denied relief on that basis.  We
  affirm.

       The relevant facts are undisputed.  Plaintiff was found guilty of a
  major disciplinary infraction  on October 18, 1999, and appealed to the
  superintendent, who denied his appeal on November 16,  1999, but did not
  notify him of her decision at that time.  On December 13, 1999, plaintiff
  filed a  "complaint for the review of governmental action" in accordance
  with V.R.C.P. 75 in superior court,  alleging that the DOC violated
  Directive 410.01(I)(2) by failing to "respond" to his appeal within  thirty
  days as the language of the directive requires.  The parties filed cross
  summary judgment  motions, and the superior court granted summary judgment
  for defendants.  The superior court held  that "respond" does not require
  receipt, and that defendant's argument to the contrary would alter the 
  regulation.  This appeal followed.

       We review this case under V.R.C.P. 75.  See Shuttle v. Patrissi, 158
  Vt. 127, 131-32, 605 A.2d 845, 848 (1992).  The controversy in this case
  centers on the definition of "respond" as used in DOC  directive
  410.01(I)(2).  This directive commands, "[t]he Superintendent will respond
  to the appeal  within 30 days from the date the appeal was delivered by the
  offender to a staff member."  DOC  Directive 410.01(I)(2).  Failure to
  respond results in the action being dismissed and expunged from  the
  inmate's file.  Id.  Plaintiff argues that "respond," as used in the
  directive, must include  notification of the action of the superintendent. 
  Defendants argue that the superintendent responded  when she decided the
  appeal; the superior court accepted this construction.  

 

       For three interrelated reasons, we agree with the interpretation of
  the superior court.  First, we  must defer to the Department of Corrections
  interpretation "[a]bsent compelling indications of error."  See In re
  Capital Investment, 150 Vt. 478, 482,