Whitney v. Menard, No. 515-9-18 Wncv (Teachout, J., Aug. 5, 2019). 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 515-9-18 Wncv

ROBERT J. WHITNEY III

Plaintiff

v.

LISA MENARD, Commissioner,

Vermont Department of Corrections

Defendant

DECISION

The State’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff–Inmate Robert J. Whitney III was returned to prison from conditional re-entry 

furlough based on allegations that he violated his furlough conditions by losing his approved 

residence and for violent and threatening behavior. Following a hearing, a Vermont Department 

of Corrections hearing officer found him guilty of losing his residence and innocent of violent 

and threatening behavior. At the ensuing case staffing, he was given a “90-day interrupt,” a 90-

day period during which he would be ineligible for furlough.

In his pro se complaint, Mr. Whitney asserts that he was given the 90-day interrupt due to 

both alleged violations even though he was convicted of losing his approved residence only. He 

asserts that a 90-day interrupt merely for losing his residence is unduly harsh.

The State then filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that this case is moot 

because the 90-day interrupt has expired and Mr. Whitney again is eligible for furlough, which 

can be granted once approved housing is identified. The State also argues that the administrative 

decision at the case staffing to give Mr. Whitney a 90-day interrupt is unreviewable in any event.

In opposition to summary judgment, Mr. Whitney, now represented by Attorney Kelly 

Green, argues that he only lost his residence due to illegal “collusion” between the private 

landlord and DOC officials. The assertion of “collusion” is not meaningfully supported by any 

detailed allegations showing any wrongful conduct. Attorney Green also argues that the 90-day 

interrupt in fact has never ended because Mr. Whitney remains incarcerated. In response, the 

State argues that Mr. Whitney never sought review of the furlough revocation decision insofar as 

the loss of residence issue goes. It also reiterates that the interrupt is now long over and Mr. 

Whitney again is eligible for conditional re-entry furlough once housing can be identified.

Mr. Whitney did not preserve for review any challenge to the decision to revoke his 

furlough based on the lack of approved housing. Accordingly, the court cannot review that issue. 

See generally Pratt v. Pallito, 2017 VT 22, 204 Vt. 313 (distinguishing preservation from 
2

exhaustion and analyzing preservation in prisoner grievance case in depth). The purpose of the 

preservation requirement is to ensure that the agency has a fair chance to address an issue before 

it is presented to the judicial branch for further review. Id., 2017 VT 22, ¶ 16. “[T]o properly 

preserve an issue, a party must present the issue to the administrative agency ‘with specificity 

and clarity in a manner which gives the [agency] a fair opportunity to rule on it.’” Id. (citation 

omitted). 

With regard to the interrupt issue, Attorney Green’s argument that it necessarily persists 

simply because Mr. Whitney has not yet been returned to furlough lacks a factual basis. The 

factual record is undisputed that the interrupt is long over, and Mr. Whitney now can be placed 

back on conditional re-entry furlough once appropriate housing is identified. In any event, Mr. 

Whitney could have sought administrative review of the interrupt issue before the Commissioner 

and he did not. See Directive 410.02, Procedural Guidelines § 11(b). Thus, the court cannot 

review the issue of the interrupt, and it need not otherwise determine whether the matter is per se 

unreviewable.

The State is entitled to summary judgment.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of August 2019.

_____________________________

Mary Miles Teachout,

Superior Judge