Opinion ID: 2264097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Massey's Complaint

Text: On June 19, 2002, appellant Massey, then an inmate at the Western Correctional Institution in Cumberland, submitted a Request for Administrative Remedy to the warden of that institution. The handwritten request was as follows: Current Dept. of Public Safety and Correctional Services directives (DPSCSDs) pertaining to disciplinary rules, procedures and sanctions have been and remain adopted by [the] Commissioner of Correction, in violation of the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act (APA), State Government Article (SG), Title 10, Subtitle 1. Said regulations are unlawful, and I am currently being punished, i.e., serving additional prison time, as a result. (My complaint is singular  the regulations are unlawful and violate my interest in fairness). I request prompt corrective action and any appropriate damages and attorney fees, etc. in the event of future litigation. (Emphasis added). On or about June 24, the Institutional Coordinator, apparently acting for the warden, dismissed the request on the ground that Massey had exceeded the monthly limit of five requests. In accordance with DCD 185-100, Massey appealed to the Commissioner who, on July 1, 2002, dismissed the appeal after concluding that the Institutional Coordinator properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to DCD 185-205. We infer from that response that the Commissioner rejected the appeal because Massey had exceeded the five requests/month limit allowed by that DCD. In accordance with CS § 10-206, Massey submitted a grievance to IGO. He stated his grievance to be that DCD 185-002, which restricts the number of administrative complaints, is both unconstitutional and ineffective per the Administrative Procedure Act (State Gov't Art., § 10-113). He made clear in Attachments that the basis of his complaint was that the directive that contained the five requests/month limitation had not been validly adopted. On August 27, 2002, the Executive Director administratively dismissed the appeal as being on its face wholly lacking in merit. He did not base his rejection of the appeal on the five requests/month limitation, however, and, indeed, stated that it would not be necessary to address the procedural issue associated with the dismissal of your ARP [Request for Administrative Remedy] complaint because I am prepared to address the substantive issue. In that regard, he stated: Not only did your original ARP complaint fail to adequately set forth a specific complaint, but more importantly the general basis which you referred to was erroneous. While the documents you mentioned (e.g. disciplinary rules, etc) were properly referred to as `directives', you later erroneously referred to them as `regulations' as falling under the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act. `Directives' and `Regulations' are two separate and distinct entities. Clearly implicit in that ruling is IGO's determination that the directives issued by the Secretary  at least those applicable to Massey's complaint and grievance  were not regulations as defined in the APA and did not need to be adopted as such. Massey then filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Allegany County. He argued to that court that his complaint was specific, that he challenged the validity of directives that subjected him to increased punishment and restricted his access to the courts, that the directives qualified as regulations that had to be adopted in accordance with the APA, and that they did not constitute guidelines as to routine internal management. The State's response was that the DPSCSD 105-4 and 105-5 concerned only internal management and did not affect directly the rights of the public or procedures available to the public, and that they therefore did not have to be adopted in conformance with SG, title 10, subtitle 1. After a hearing, at which Massey appeared (as he had throughout) without counsel, the court, on March 10, 2003, entered an order affirming the IGO decision. No reasons were given. Massey then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. That court eventually granted the application and transferred the case to its regular docket, but, before argument, we granted certiorari on our own initiative to review the two issues raised in Massey's brief  whether the directives relevant to this case are subject to SG, title 10, subtitle 1, and whether the IGO should have set the matter in for hearing. We need not address the second issue.