Griffith v. North Carolina Department of Correction, 210 N.C. App. 544

Background

Griffith, an inmate, filed a complaint alleging NC Department of Correction imposed a $10 inmate disciplinary fee without legislative authorization, violating § 12-3.1 and constitutional provisions.
NCDOC admitted imposing the fee but denied illegality, raising defenses including failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity.
Motions for judgment on the pleadings and a protective order were filed; multiple continuances were granted related to another similarly situated case.
At a June 2010 hearing, the trial court orally indicated the motions were granted; a written order was issued later dismissing the case, directing the prevailing party to draft the order.
Griffith appealed, challenging the alleged verbal orders, the drafting of the order, jury rights, ex parte communications, and the court’s statutory construction conclusions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, concluding the alleged verbal orders were non-existent, drafting authority was proper, no jury right existed for pure-law issues, no prejudicial ex parte communications occurred, and the statutory construction was correct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of alleged verbal orders on appeal	Griffith contends the court verbally granted motions for judgment on the pleadings and a protective order.	NCDOC asserts only written orders matter; oral statements without a written order cannot support an appeal.	Verbal orders are non-existent; no appellate error.
Validity of drafting the court order by the prevailing party	Trial court failed to draft independent orders; judge should have written its own rulings.	Rule 58 allows the prevailing party to draft an order reflecting the court’s ruling.	Proper; written order conformed to oral judgment.
Right to jury trial on purely legal statutory questions	Dispute involves statutory interpretation and is legal, not factual, warranting a jury.	Pure questions of statutory construction are decided as a matter of law without a jury.	No right to jury trial; issue resolved as a matter of law.
Ex parte communications and continuances under local rules	Continuance orders and scheduling communications constituted ex parte dealings prejudicing him.	Discretionary continuances were appropriate and notices complied with rules; no prejudice shown.	No reversible error; any local-rule deficiencies did not prejudice Griffith.
Statutory construction of § 12-3.1 and APA interplay	§ 12-3.1 prohibits fee creation without legislative authorization; APA provisions do not exempt NCDOC in custody matters.	NCDOC is exempt from APA rule-making for matters relating solely to persons in custody; §§ 12-3.1 and APA provisions align when read in pari materia.	Trial court’s conclusions of law on § 12-3.1(a) and related provisions correct; NCDOC exempt from APA rule-making for prisoner-related fees.

Key Cases Cited

Olson v. McMillian, 144 N.C.App. 615 (2001) (oral orders not reduced to writing are non-existent)
Worsham v. Richbourg's Sales & Rentals, 124 N.C.App. 782 (1996) (entry of judgment required for appellate jurisdiction)
In re J.B., 172 N.C.App. 1 (2005) (procedural precedent on drafting orders)
Morris v. Bailey, 86 N.C.App. 378 (1987) (written judgment need not recite every finding of law)
Edwards v. Taylor, 182 N.C.App. 722 (2007) (judgment may reflect the court's ruling even if not all grounds are stated)
Trayford v. N.C. Psychology Bd., 174 N.C.App. 118 (2005) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520 (1998) (statutory interpretation principles and de novo review)
Ford v. State of North Carolina, 115 N.C.App. 556 (1994) (APA interpretation and statute harmony principles)
State v. Leeper, 59 N.C.App. 199 (1982) (particular statute controls in its field when in tension with general provisions)
Kaminsky v. Sebile, 140 N.C.App. 71 (2000) (absurd results may require disregarding literal readings)
Perkins v. Arkansas Trucking Servs., Inc., 351 N.C. 634 (2000) (plain meaning governs unless produces absurd results)