Burke v. Deml
23-cv-1442
| Vt. Super. Ct. | Sep 23, 2024Background
- Vermont inmate James Burke, housed at Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility (TCCF) in Mississippi, challenged the amount and nature of recreational time provided to him and other Vermont inmates.
- Burke claimed that TCCF inmates receive only 1.5 hours of outdoor recreation daily (with no access to a grassy area on Sundays), whereas inmates in Vermont allegedly enjoy 6 hours of recreational time per day.
- The transfer of Vermont inmates to TCCF is governed by a contract between the state and CoreCivic, Inc., which specifies a minimum of six hours out-of-cell time per day (including at least 1.5 hours out-of-unit recreation).
- The Department of Corrections and CoreCivic allocate recreation time in line with the contract, impacted by staffing, facility design, and other operational concerns; Vermont law does not require a set minimum of outdoor recreation time.
- Burke filed a Rule 75 appeal, seeking review and enforcement of what he claimed were his rights to equal recreational opportunities under Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution (common benefits clause).
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, dismissing Burke's claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to equal recreational time under Vermont law | Burke: TCCF inmates denied same recreational time | Deml: No legal right to a set amount or type of recreation | No right; claim denied |
| Violation of Vermont Constitution Art. 7 (common benefits) | Burke: Denied common benefit given to Vermont inmates | Deml: No evidence of denial; distinctions are justified | No denial; no constitutional violation |
| Contract compliance by TCCF | Burke: TCCF not meeting required standards | Deml: TCCF in full compliance with contract and standards | TCCF compliant; claim denied |
| Mandamus/certiorari review under Rule 75 | Burke: Seeks enforcement of alleged legal duties | Deml: Policies discretionary; court should defer to agency | Discretionary, no duty owed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rheaume v. Pallito, 30 A.3d 1266 (Vt. 2011) (sets scope for Rule 75 review and mandamus/ certiorari procedure)
- Ahern v. Mackey, 924 A.2d 699 (Vt. 2007) (outlines standard of review and agency deference under Rule 75)
- Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (articulates the framework for common benefits clause claims under the Vermont Constitution)
- Lemieux v. Tri-State Lotto Comm’n, 646 A.2d 1137 (Vt. 1994) (addresses deference to discretionary decisions by state agencies)
- Carr v. Peerless Insurance Co., 719 A.2d 1238 (Vt. 1998) (summary judgment standard and benefit of inferences to non-movant)