Opinion ID: 2264097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Issue Before Us

Text: The first thing we need to do is determine more precisely what is before us. Massey filed a request for administrative remedy pursuant to the DCD 185 series. He was thus invoking a directive adopted by the Commissioner pursuant to CS § 3-205. His complaint was that he had been subjected to discipline and had lost diminution credits pursuant to the substantive and procedural provisions of DPSCSD 105-4 and 105-5, which he believed to be invalid, in part, at least, because they had not been adopted in conformance with the APA. His initial challenge, as he made clear, was not to whether he was guilty of an infraction that called for the discipline imposed but only to the Secretary's directives pursuant to which the matter was adjudicated. Massey's complaint was dismissed by the Institutional Coordinator and ultimately by the warden solely because he had exceeded the five requests/month limit established in DCD 185-002. That was not the basis for the dismissal of his complaint by the IGO, however. The IGO expressly did not reach the procedural impediment issue but instead ruled on the merits of Massey's initial request, holding that DPSCSD 105-4 and 105-5 were not regulations that needed to be adopted in conformance with the APA and that they were therefore valid and effective. Judicial review in this instance is of the IGO decision, which was a summary dismissal and, under CS § 10-207(b)(2)(ii), constituted the final decision of the Secretary. See CS § 10-210(b) (The complainant is entitled to judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary under § 10-207(b)(2)(ii)... of this subtitle.). The final decision of the Secretary, in other words, was that DPSCSD 105-4 and 105-5 were not regulations that needed to be adopted in conformance with the APA. We are therefore not concerned here with the application or validity of the DCD 185 series, but only whether DPSCSD 105-4 and 105-5 are legally effective. The State does not contest that DPSCSD 105-4 and 105-5 fall within the definition of regulation in SG § 10-101(g)(1), and clearly that is the case. [3] They constitute statements that have general application throughout all of the correctional institutions in DOC and apply to all inmates in those institutions; they have future effect; they were adopted by a unit to carry out laws that the unit administers; and they are in the form of rules, standards, statements of interpretation, and statements of policy. The only defense posed by the State is that the Secretary is excused from complying with the procedural requirements of SG title 10, subtitle 1 because (1) the directives concern only internal management of the unit [and do] not affect directly the rights of the public or the procedures available to the public and therefore are excluded by SG § 10-101(g)(2) from the definition of regulation, and (2) they constitute a guideline pertaining to the routine internal management of correctional facilities in the Division of Correction and, even if deemed to be a regulation under SG § 10-101(g), they need not be adopted in conformance with SG, title 10, subtitle 1 by virtue of CS § 2-109. As to both provisions, the State's position is that the Secretary's directives govern how DOC maintains order and manages the inmate population, which are matters of internal management for which great flexibility is required. It refers, in that regard, to some of the more mundane provisions, such as how the correctional staff is to prepare notices of disciplinary infractions and the manner in which inmates may waive a hearing. Massey points out, of course, that the directives do a great deal more than that  that they define both the substantive and procedural construct under which inmates may have their incarceration extended and thus affect Constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Both parties cite out-of-State cases to support their respective positions.