Opinion ID: 1926995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts & standard of review

Text: [¶ 2] Maine Court Facilities Authority was created in 1987, see P.L.1987, ch. 438, § 1, as a quasi-governmental agency to undertake the construction and renovation of court facilities. Ten years later, the Authority's mission was extended to all governmental facilities and its name changed to the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority (Authority or MGFA). See 4 M.R.S.A. §§ 1601-1603 (1989 & Supp. 1999). Since its founding, the Authority has been authorized to borrow money and to issue negotiable securities. 4 M.R.S.A. § 1604(10) (1989). [2] The Authority uses the proceeds of these securities to finance construction projects, and the structures thus built are leased to the State. Rental payments to the MGFA by the State are expressly conditioned on the passage of subsequent legislative appropriations. If the Legislature fails to appropriate the money to pay the rent, the Authority would be unable to fulfill its obligation to security holders. The State is not obligated in any way on the bonds issued by the Authority. [¶ 3] Collins, a prisoner at the Maine State Prison, is concerned with the State's use of MGFA bond proceeds to finance the construction of a new prison facility. Collins asserts that he has standing as a State Tax Payer, a State Citizen, and is affected by the actions, failure and/or refusal to act [of the State]. He additionally asserts that the Crafts Program he now participates in at the Maine State Prison will be unavailable at the new prison being built with the funds generated from the sale of the bonds in question. He asserts that the Crafts activity enables him to earn thousands of dollars every year and further that his personal liberties will be severely curtailed at the new prison for he will not have access to a music room, a distressing turn of events for Collins who styles himself as an aspiring musician. [¶ 4] Review of a dismissal pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) accepts the facts as presented in the complaint as true. See Bowen v. Eastman, 645 A.2d 5, 6 (Me.1994). Nevertheless, we are not bound to accept the complaint's legal conclusions. Id. (citing Robinson v. Washington County, 529 A.2d 1357, 1359 (Me. 1987)). Nor do we have to accept the Superior Court's decisions of law that buttress a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6); these are reviewed de novo. See State v. O'Connor, 681 A.2d 475, 476 (Me.1996).