Court Opinion

ID: 9946804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 15:27:27.161932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:41.144475
License: Public Domain

nog gt

STATE OF VE

SUPERIOR COURT J CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit A | Docket No. 227-4-17 Wnev

CHAD PAQUETTE
Plaintiff

aman
ment

Vv.

LISA MENARD
Defendant

DECISION
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

Petitioner Chad Paquette, an inmate in the custody of the Commissioner of the
Department of Corrections, seeks Rule 75 review of his request for expungement of a conviction
for a disciplinary violation by the Vermont Department of Corrections. The only issue is
whether he is entitled to expungement because he received the disciplinary decision on the sixth
day after the hearing rather than within five days as required by Directive 410.01, Procedural
Guidelines § 8(e). The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment addressing that
issue.

The Directive requires as follows: “The Superintendent will forward the decision to the
inmate within five (5) business days of the hearing.” There is no dispute that Mr. Paquette
received his decision on the sixth day.

The Directive does not specify any consequence, much less expungement, if the DOC
misses the 5-day deadline in § 8(e), There are numerous required timeframes for different steps
in the disciplinary process in Directive 410.01, only one of which leads to automatic
expungement if violated by the DOC. The failure to respond to an appeal within thirty days
“will result in the dismissal of the disciplinary action, and staff will expunge the DR packet from
the inmate’s file and the database.” Directive 410.01 § 9(c). Even when such a severe remedy is
expressly available—unlike here—it must be “strictly construed ... to apply only when it
clearly implements the .. . purpose’ of avoiding indecision and protracted deliberation” and
prejudice. Loveland v. Gorczyk, 173 Vt. 501, 502 (2001) (quoting In re Newton Enterprises, 167
Vt. 459, 465 (1998)) (interpreting the 30-day appeal response period in an earlier version of
Directive 410.01). ,

In this case, there is no relevant expungement remedy in the Directive. A one-day delay
in receiving a decision does not demonstrate indecision or protracted deliberation, and there is no

showing of prejudice.

There is no legal basis for the relief Mr. Paquette seeks.
ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion for summary judgment is granted and Mr.
Paquette’s is denied.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this | Say of February 2018.
“4 ‘ \y LA VVVL a Noa oct

Mary Miles Teachout
Superior Judge