Opinion ID: 1984837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The LRAA.

Text: Ms. Gaither contends that the Lorton Regulations confer upon her a right to counsel at disciplinary proceedings conducted at the CTF. We are unable to agree with this contention. We begin, as we must, with the language used by the legislature. The wording of the LRAA discloses that the Act has no application to the CTF. The title of the statute  the Lorton Regulations Approval Act  tells us that the legislation concerns procedures at Lorton. Moreover, as we have previously noted, § 2 of the LRAA is quite specific. The statute approves the regulations setting forth the administrative procedures for adjustment and housing actions and the code of offenses governing residents of the Lorton Correctional Complex.  LRAA § 2, 29 D.C.Reg. 3484 (1982) (emphasis added). The legislative history confirms that the LRAA and the underlying regulations were designed to apply to Lorton only: The purpose of Bill 4-351 is to satisfy one of the conditions of a 1979 settlement agreement in the case of Nathaniel B. Wright, III et[ ] al. v. Delbert C. Jackson, et al., (U.S. District Court, Civil Action No. 75-0697). That case is a prisoners' class action suit which seeks determination of what process is due the approximately 2,000 inmates at Lorton Reformatory before they may be subjected to grievous loss in the form of good time credits or confinement in more restrictive housing facilities. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections as defendant has agreed to now seek Council approval of regulations which were approved by all parties in the case and which set forth the code of offenses governing residents of the Lorton Correctional Complex, the disciplinary policy and procedures (adjustments) applicable to violations of the code of offenses, and inmate housing policies. Enactment of Bill 4-351 would effect Council approval of these regulations in conformity with the D.C.Code, and thereby finally terminate litigation pending since 1975. COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Report on Bill 4-351, THE LORTON REGULATIONS ACT OF 1982, at 1 (June 9, 1982) (emphasis added). [10] A careful examination of the Lorton Regulations discloses that they were not, and could not have been, intended to apply at privately operated facilities such as the CTF. The regulations specify that a number of critical roles in the disciplinary process are to be performed by DOC officials. They provide, for example, that the Adjustment Board, which is responsible for determining a prisoner's guilt or innocence of disciplinary infractions, shall consist of three (3) [11] Department of Corrections Officials. 28 DCMR § 509.1. The Housing Board, which determines whether a prisoner is to be placed in administrative segregation for reasons of safety or security, is likewise composed of three (3) officials of the Department of Corrections. Id. at 522.1. But the DOC has no day-to-day involvement in the operation of the CTF or of other prison facilities operated by the CCA. Indeed two CCA prisons are located in Ohio and New Mexico respectively. At private correctional institutions, there are no DOC officials available on the scene to carry out the functions assigned to DOC personnel by the Lorton Regulations. It follows that these provisions were not crafted with private facilities in mind, and it would be unreasonable to apply the Lorton Regulations to institutions such as the CTF, at which they cannot be implemented as written. In ruling in Ms. Gaither's favor, the trial judge relied on 28 DCMR § 500.1, which provides that the Lorton Regulations shall govern disciplinary action taken when a resident of a District correctional facility is charged with a violation of the Code of Offenses. . . . (Emphasis added.) But even if one were to assume that the term District correctional facility is broader than Lorton Correctional Complex, and that it could be construed as including the CTF, a regulation may properly govern only those matters that the statute authorizes it to govern; statutory coverage thus necessarily limits, and trumps, any purported broader coverage in the regulation. Moreover, the phrase District correctional facility is anything but clear, and does not necessarily include the CTF. [12] Given the language and legislative history of the LRAA, as well as the provision in the Lorton Regulations for the performance of important functions by DOC officials, we do not believe that the vague terminology in § 500.1 warrants the conclusion that the Lorton Regulations apply at the CTF. [13] At the time the LRAA was enacted, District prisoners were not housed at the CTF or at similar institutions. It may be that if they had been so placed, the DOC would have promulgated, and the Council would have approved, regulations assuring for these prisoners the right to representation by counsel at disciplinary proceedings. Since DOC personnel are not available to serve on Adjustment Boards or Housing Boards at private prisons, the regulations might have provided for alternate staffing of these bodies. No such measures having been promulgated or approved, however, we may not expand by judicial construction regulations which were designed solely for facilities operated by the DOC, and which cannot be applied, according to their terms, at privately run prisons. It is not within the judicial function ... to rewrite the statute [or regulation], or to supply omissions in it, in order to make it `more fair.' 1841 Columbia Rd. Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 575 A.2d 306, 308 (D.C.1990). In the words of Justice Brandeis, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, what Ms. Gaither asks is not a construction of a statute, [14] but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function. Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 250-51, 46 S.Ct. 248, 70 L.Ed. 566 (1926); see also Chase v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 669 A.2d 1264, 1268-69 (D.C.1995) (quoting Iselin ).