Opinion ID: 2785909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: June 23 Disciplinary Charges

Text: The incidents relevant to Mr. Goguen’s claims begin on June 23, 2011, when Officer Jennifer Gilblair searched Mr. Goguen’s cell in E-pod for an envelope. Officer Gilblair asked Officer Craig Meunier not to let Mr. Goguen upstairs while she was searching the cell. Mr. Goguen was allowed to watch the cell search from downstairs. Based on the configuration of the SCJ, however, the district court concluded that one actually cannot watch a cell search from downstairs. The defendants dispute whether the district court reasonably could have reached this conclusion based on the evidence before it. Officer Gilblair’s search uncovered commissary items including one ‐6‐ plastic soap dish, one bar of soap, one plastic bowl, one whitecolored shower shaver, and one bottle of shampoo. It is undisputed that, due to a lack of funds, Mr. Goguen could not have purchased these items; consequently, Officer Gilblair wrote a disciplinary report and a notice of infraction for a violation of C–04 of the SCJ Inmate Discipline Policy, “Giving, Receiving, or Swapping.”1 Mr. Goguen maintains that there was no legitimate reason to search his cell for an envelope because legal envelopes are supplied for free by the commissary. According to Officer Meunier, Mr. Goguen responded to the search of his cell by arguing and swearing at him. Officer Meunier therefore wrote a disciplinary report concerning Mr. Goguen’s conduct, in which he charged Mr. Goguen with a violation of B–24, “Interfering,” and B–12, “[P]rovocation.”2 Mr. Goguen denies that he argued with or swore at the officers involved in the search of his cell; instead, he maintains that Officer Gilblair yelled and cursed at him. Mr. Goguen contends that these charges were falsely brought by Officers Meunier and 1 See R. 56-11 (SCJ Policy-“Inmate Discipline”) at 72; R.45-18 (SCJ Disciplinary Report dated 6/23/11) at 1. 2 R.45-20 (SCJ Disciplinary Report dated 6/23/11) at 1. Although the disciplinary report identifies “Provocation” as a violation of policy “B-12,” “Provocation” actually corresponds to B-13. R.56-11 (SCJ Policy-“Inmate Discipline”) at 71. ‐7‐ Gilblair. Notably, Mr. Goguen attributes Officer Gilblair’s actions to the fact that, just before the search, he had been a witness for another inmate and “wrote a report against Gilblair for her misconduct . . . or harassment.”3 Following this incident, Mr. Goguen was placed in administrative segregation in A-pod on order of then-Sergeant Keith Plourd.4 A non-defendant officer, Officer Ducharme, was assigned to investigate the giving-receiving-swapping charge and spoke to Mr. Goguen on the day of the incident. He informed Mr. Goguen of the alleged violation and asked for Mr. Goguen’s side of the story. Officer Ducharme provided Mr. Goguen a notice of infraction, which informed him of the charge. Mr. Goguen admitted that the items found in his cell were not issued to him, but claimed that they either were left in the cell, given to him by another inmate, or left behind in the shower; he claimed that he was unaware that he could not have them. 3 R.83 (Goguen Dep.) at 47. 4 Sergeant Plourd now has been promoted to Lieutenant. However, we shall refer to him by his rank at the time the alleged actions took place. Mr. Goguen maintains that, as a result of the search conducted on June 23 and his subsequent transfer to A-pod, some of his legal papers went missing. He has not substantiated this allegation through any sworn statement. ‐8‐ Officer James French was assigned to investigate the interfering-provocation charge. He supplied Mr. Goguen with a notice, informed Mr. Goguen of the charge, and asked for his side of the story. The standard notice informs inmates that they will receive an opportunity to respond or to explain the alleged violation to a disciplinary hearing officer within seven days; the hearing officer considers whether the inmate is guilty and determines the appropriate sanction. The notice further states that the inmate has the right to call witnesses and to question them, provided the witnesses are identified and the questions are presented to the hearing officer prior to the hearing date. Notices and reports of infractions are forwarded to Special Projects Officer Gary Crafts. Officer Crafts reviews each matter and then determines how the charge should proceed. For instance, he may determine that the charge should be changed, dismissed, or steered toward an informal resolution. He also may refer the matter for further investigation or for a disciplinary hearing. Officer Crafts referred both of Mr. Goguen’s June 23 infractions for disciplinary hearings. Mr. Goguen identified his witnesses by description and cell location, but not by name. He also did not put in writing the ‐9‐ questions that he wanted witnesses to answer. As a result, neither Officer Crafts, nor the hearing officer, pursued any witness statements on Mr. Goguen’s behalf. A hearing was conducted on July 1 by Officer Eddie Jacques. At the hearing, Officer Jacques heard Mr. Goguen’s testimony, viewed still photos, reviewed the officers’ incident reports, and found Mr. Goguen guilty of “Giving, Receiving, or Swapping,” for which he received a verbal reprimand. Officer Jacques also found Mr. Goguen guilty of “Interfering” and “Provocation,” for which he received a verbal reprimand and a $10 fine. Officer Eddie Jacques stated in his reports that he had assessed zero days of disciplinary segregation. Mr. Goguen appealed the decision concerning interfering and provocation to the administrator of SCJ, Major David Allen, but the decision was affirmed. While these proceedings were ongoing, Mr. Goguen stayed in A-pod. His placement first was reviewed by nondefendant Lieutenant Campbell on June 26, 2011. Lieutenant Campbell determined that Mr. Goguen should remain in administrative segregation, and Mr. Goguen received a notice that he would be kept in administrative segregation and his placement again would be reviewed on July 1, 2011. ‐10‐ On July 1, 2011, a hearing was held to review Mr. Goguen’s administrative-segregation status. Lieutenant Darlene Bugbee was the hearing officer, and Officer French and non-defendant Officer Welsh served as committee members. Mr. Goguen attended and testified at the hearing, after which the committee determined that Mr. Goguen should remain in administrative segregation until a classification committee could review his security status. On July 6, 2011, another administrative segregation hearing occurred. This time, Lieutenant Bugbee was the hearing officer; Sergeant Plourd and Officer Meunier served as committee members. Following the hearing, at which Mr. Goguen testified, the committee determined that he should be removed from administrative segregation because classification had reviewed Mr. Goguen’s status and had determined that he still should be classified as a medium-security inmate. Mr. Goguen therefore was released from administrative segregation and returned to E- pod, where he remained until he was transported to the Penobscot County Jail on July 10, 2011.