FITZGERALD CARRYL v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Decision: 2019 ME 114, Docket: Ken-18-487
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
July 18, 2019
2019 ME 114
MEAD, J.
Submittеd On Briefs: June 26, 2019. Reporter of Decisions. Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
[¶1] Fitzgerald Carryl, an inmate at the Maine State Prison, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Stokes, J.) denying his petition for review of a final agency action and affirming a disciplinary action that resulted in the imposition of sanctiоns against him for the offense of assault. Because the record before us contains no competent evidence to support the hearing officer‘s determination that Carryl committed an assault, we vacate the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The following facts are drawn from the procedural record. See Dubois v. Dep‘t of Envtl. Prot., 2017 ME 224, ¶ 3, 174 A.3d 314. In a disciplinary incident report dated April 15, 2018, a corrections officer stated that
On the above date and time after finding out about the assаult on Prisoner [Y] I reviewed the camera system to try to
determine who assaulted him. On the date and time around the assault [Carryl] is seen on the A-pod Camerа 1 at 10:41 leaving cell 108 in A-pod and goes upstairs to cell 204, at 10:43 he is seen exiting the cell which meets the time frame of the assault. Due to this new information Cаrryl ... will be receiving a write up for assault.
[¶3] Carryl was then scheduled for a formal disciplinary hearing on the assault violation, and he requested to call the victim, Prisoner Y, as a witness. A disciplinary hearing was held on May 1, 2018. The disciplinary hearing officer denied Carryl‘s request to call Prisoner Y as a witness, stating that Prisoner Y “is the victim and won‘t be called because if he was to say that [Carryl] did do anything that would put him in danger.”
[¶4] The hearing officer determined that Carryl “is guilty based on the оfficer[‘]s report. I do believe that base[d] on the report from the officer it is more probable th[a]n not that [the] prisoner did do what‘s in the repоrt.” The recommended disposition was a thirty-day disciplinary restriction. Carryl appealed the finding of guilt and the recommended disposition to the Chief Administrаtive Officer who affirmed the hearing officer‘s decision.
[¶5] Carryl appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with
II. DISCUSSION
A. Right to Call Witnesses
[¶6] Carryl first argues that the hearing officer impermissibly denied his request to call Prisoner Y as a witness аt his disciplinary hearing. Although an “inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); see also
[¶7] Here, the hearing officer‘s stated reason for withholding Prisoner Y as a witness was that Prisoner Y “is the victim and won‘t be called because if he was to say that [Carryl] did do anything that would put him in danger.” The hearing officer‘s explanation—the risk of danger to Prisoner Y—is logically related to the need for institutional safety.1 See id.; see also Wolff, 418 U.S. at 569 (recognizing that where courts are presented with рrison officials’ assessments as to the dangers involved, there is a limited basis for upsetting such judgments). Thus, because the denial was an effort to shield the alleged victim from possible harm, Carryl‘s right to call witnesses was not unreasonably restricted.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[¶8] Carryl next contends that the hearing officer‘s finding of guilt was not supported by substаntial evidence in the record. “Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion. We examine the entire record to determine whether the [hearing officer] could fairly and reasonably find the facts as [he] did.” Richard, 2018 ME 122, ¶ 21, 192 A.3d 611 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Administrative agency findings of fact will be vacated only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support a decision.” Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2010 ME 18, ¶ 14, 989 A.2d 1128. Carryl “bears the burden of persuasion on appeal because he seeks to vacate the [agency]‘s decision.” Richard, 2018 ME 122, ¶ 21, 192 A.3d 611.
[¶9] Pursuant to Maine Department of Corrections policy, the disciplinary hearing officer‘s “finding of guilt or innocence must rest solely upon evidence produсed at the hearing, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary report, the prisoner‘s statement, if any, to the investigator, any exhibits, and the testimony of any witnesses. ... [A] finding of guilt must be based on a determination that it is more probable than not that the prisoner committed the violation.”
[¶10] Although “an agency is not obligated to include a complete factual record with its decision, it must include a written statement of facts sufficient to show a rational basis for the decision.” Int‘l Paper Co. v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 1999 ME 135, ¶ 13, 737 A.2d 1047; see also
[¶11] The report states that, after finding out about an assault on Prisoner Y, a corrections officer reviewed the camera system; the officer saw Carryl leaving his cell at 10:41, going upstairs to cell 204, and leaving cell 204 at 10:43. The report states that this was the time frame of the assault. The reрort is silent, however, on the essential elements of an assault violation, including any evidence that an assault on Prisoner Y in fact occurred or аny evidence of Carryl‘s involvement other than being in the vicinity of cell 204 around the time frame of the assault.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated.
Fitzgerald Carryl, appellant pro se
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and James E. Fortin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Corrections
Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2018-38
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY