Daniel E. Mutty v. Department of Corrections
2017 ME 7
| Me. | 2017Background
- Daniel Mutty, pro se, filed a Rule 80C petition in Superior Court on July 21, 2015, challenging a DOC disciplinary decision that revoked good-time credit and imposed fines; he also moved to proceed without fees and submitted supporting account statements.
- The court issued an order (Sept. 10, 2015) stating Mutty failed to state a claim because it could not determine the date of final agency action and gave Mutty 15 days to amend; the case was dismissed on Oct. 21, 2015 for failure to amend.
- Mutty attempted to file an amended petition, notices of appeal, and motions to reconsider; filings were at times rejected for procedural defects (failure to include filing fees or fee-waiver applications).
- Mutty moved under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the dismissal; the court granted a fee waiver for the Rule 60(b) motion but denied relief and Mutty appealed the dismissal and the Rule 60(b) denial.
- The Supreme Judicial Court concluded the trial court erred by requiring Mutty to allege a specific final agency action date and by dismissing for lack of jurisdiction without an affirmative basis in the record showing the petition was untimely; the judgment was vacated and remanded for action on Mutty’s outstanding fee-waiver request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under the APA’s 30-day limit for appeals from agency decisions | Mutty argued his petition complied with APA pleading requirements and the court should not dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; he sought leave to proceed without fees and attempted to amend the petition | DOC maintained the petition was untimely / court lacked jurisdiction (as implied by dismissal) | Court held the trial court erred in presuming lack of jurisdiction; timeliness depends on date of receipt of notice (not final agency action date) and the petition was not fatally deficient on its face |
| Whether the trial court may require allegation of the specific date of final agency action | Mutty contended the statute requires only identification of the action to be reviewed, not a date | Trial court required a specific date and dismissed when none was alleged | Court held the trial court improperly required a specific date and thereby imposed content beyond 5 M.R.S. § 11002(2) |
| Whether a facially sufficient petition preliminarily establishes jurisdiction | Mutty argued a petition meeting statutory content should permit the court to determine jurisdiction rather than dismissal | Trial court dismissed before establishing the date of receipt to determine timeliness | Court held a petition that facially meets statutory requirements is at least preliminarily sufficient to establish jurisdiction; dismissal requires an affirmative record basis showing untimeliness |
| Whether Rule 60(b) denial must be resolved given vacatur of dismissal | Mutty sought relief under Rule 60(b) from the dismissal | DOC argued the dismissal and subsequent denial were proper | Court vacated dismissal and therefore did not reach whether denial of Rule 60(b) relief was erroneous; remanded for fee-waiver action and any jurisdictional issues to be addressed first |
Key Cases Cited
- Persson v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 775 A.2d 363 (Me. 2001) (APA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Tomer v. Me. Human Rights Comm’n, 962 A.2d 335 (Me. 2008) (no favorable inferences when reviewing jurisdictional dismissal)
- Fournier v. Dep’t of Corr., 983 A.2d 403 (Me. 2009) (petitioners—represented or pro se—must meet APA timing uniformly; notice date controls)
- Collins v. Dep’t of Corr., 122 A.3d 955 (Me. 2015) (court may dismiss when the record clearly shows untimeliness)
- Bureau of Taxation v. Town of Washburn, 490 A.2d 1182 (Me. 1985) (facially sufficient pleading preliminarily establishes jurisdiction)