Court Opinion

ID: 9956681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 18:16:44.582742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:43.572809
License: Public Domain

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT Ow G54 CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Dig Acs! AS Docket No. 218-4-18 Wnev
DEVLIN WRIGHT
Plaintiff ee
Pope. e
v.
LISA MENARD, Commissioner,
Vermont Department of Corrections
Defendant
DECISION

The State’s Motion to Dismiss

Petitioner Devlin Wright, an inmate in the custody of the Commissioner of the
Department of Corrections, filed this action seeking to raise an issue relating to the Department
of Corrections’ designation of him as a high-risk sex offender pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5411b.

The State promptly filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Wright failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies because he never appealed the designation administratively
to the Sex Offender Review Committee. Vt. Admin. Code 12-8-4:4 § 4.5. Mr. Wright alleges
that he filed and exhausted an ordinary grievance rather than an appeal to the Committee because
he was expressly instructed to do so by his caseworker, Jeff Hill, and the assistant
superintendent, Mike Lyons. He argues that the misdirection should estop the State from seeking
to dismiss on exhaustion grounds.

There is no dispute that Mr. Wright received the notice of high-risk designation, and the
notice explained than any appeal must be filed with the Sex Offender Review Committee. The
State argues that, due to the clarity of the notice, there can be no estoppel in this case. It further
argues that the Vermont Supreme Court has so ruled explicitly, citing In re Landry, 2015 VT 6,
198 Vt. 565.

Landry is not pertinent to this case. In Landry, a would-be administrative appellant
unilaterally and repeatedly subjectively misunderstood the implications of appealing a denial
versus filing a new application on the retroactivity of benefits. Nothing on the face of the notice
was confusing in that regard and no agent of the State otherwise misrepresented anything to the
appellant. There was no exhaustion issue presented. The allegation in this case is that two
agents of the State, both in substantial positions of power and authority over Mr. Wright,
specifically directed him to exhaust his administrative remedy in one way rather than another,
and he did so. Landry did not address similar circumstances.

The obligation to exhaust an administrative remedy is contingent on the availability of
that administrative remedy. Misrepresentation can render an otherwise available administrative
remedy no longer available and thus eliminate the obligation to exhaust. Ross v. Blake, 136 S.
Ct. 1850, 1860 (2016). Mr. Wright alleges misrepresentation, but the petition is spare and the
record does not contain enough facts for the court to rule that Mr. Wright should not be excused
from the obligation to have appealed to the Committee. Moreover, in the petition, Mr. Wright

’ claims that his high-risk designation violates his plea agreement, a claim that could be
characterized as a post-conviction relief claim. Thus, if in fact Mr. Wright was directed to file an
ordinary grievance rather than an appeal to the Committee, it is not clear that there was any
jurisdictional defect in so doing.

Since there is a possibility that jurisdiction can be shown, the court declines to dismiss on
the grounds claimed by the State.
ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to dismiss is denied at this time.
An amended complaint is due by September 21, 2018.
A stipulated pretrial schedule is due by October 5, 2018.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 3 | day of August 2018.

We ui AN Le a Veeck

Mary Mil. ¢s Teachout
Superior Judge