Opinion ID: 2444645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction and Propriety of Grievance

Text: [¶ 10] The determination of whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction in this matter depends on whether the grievance decision was a final agency action subject to appeal. See 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) ([A]ny person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court.). By statute, a final agency action is a decision by an agency which affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific persons, which is dispositive of all issues, legal and factual, and for which no further recourse, appeal or review is provided within the agency. 5 M.R.S. § 8002(4) (2009). [¶ 11] Because Raynes appealed through all channels available to him and received a final decision on the grievance, see 1A C.M.R. 03 201 010-55 § 29.1(VI)(E)(3) (2006) (stating that the third level of review to the Commissioner is the final administrative level of appeal), that decision was properly on review before the Superior Court. [¶ 12] We further conclude that the court correctly determined that, pursuant to Department policy, a grievance may not be filed regarding [d]isciplinary procedures and decisions because appeal procedures for handling these matters already exist. 1A C.M.R. 03 201 010-53 § 29.1(VI)(A)(1)(b). Based on this language, the Department denied Raynes's grievance. In doing so, it applied its policy consistent with its plain language. The remaining question is whether the application of this policy and other prison policies violated Raynes's due process rights.