Opinion

Mendez v. State of Maine

Court
Superior Court of Maine
Filed
Jul 31, 2002
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Thomas E. Humphrey
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.1%

The opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CUMBERLAND, SS. CIVIL ACTION

. DOCKET NO. AP-02-016

SS Ey ub tho.

Bid Lope

STEVEN A. MENDEZ,

Petitioner

vs. ORDER

STATE OF MAINE, DONALD | GARBRECHT

Respondent SP 9 om

The petitioner is incarcerated at the Maine Correctional Center in

Windham, Maine. He asserts that he lost good time credits as the result of.a

disciplinary proceeding, which in turn delayed the release date of the first

of his two consecutive sentences from October 28, 2001 to November 11,

2001. On November 13, 2001, he appealed that decision to the Chief

Administrative Officer of the correctional center. See 34-A M.R.S.A. §§

1OOL(1)(A) & 3032(6)(H). On November 14, 2001, he received notice that

his appeal had been denied.

On April 17, 2002, the petitioner filed this 80C action seeking a

review of the decision of the Chief Administrative Officer denying his

administrative appeal. Proof of service upon the respondent and the

Attorney General has not yet been filed. 5 M.R.S.A. § 1103(1).

On July 2, 2002, the petitioner filed a letter with the court, dated

June 30, 2002, which appears to be in the nature of a request for an

extension of time to complete service of process. M.R. Civ. P. 6(b). Although

there is no expressed deadline in the Administrative Procedures Act, 5

M.R.S.A. § 11001, et seq., or the court's rules for making service of an 80C

petition, the Law Court has held "that service on a party must be made

within the same time the petition must be filed." Ogunquit v. Department of

Public Safety, 2001 ME 47, 9 8, 767 A.2d 291, 294 (citation omitted). In

this case, the petition had to be filed within 30 days from November 14,

2001. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3). As noted, it was not filed until April 17,

2002.

The court reviewed its file for the purpose of acting on the petitioner's

request for additional time. As a result of this review, the court determined

that the petition was not timely filed and this failure deprives the court of

jurisdiction in this matter. Brown v. State Dept. of Manpower Affairs, 426

A.2d 880, 888 (Me. 1981).

"(t]he [Administrative Procedures] Act's time limitations are

jurisdictional.... As limitations on jurisdiction, the Act's time

periods for appeal are noticeable sua sponte. The Superior

Court's duty to dismiss an action when it learns it is without

jurisdiction is not affected by the manner in which the

jurisdictional facts in the record are brought to its attention."

Id. Based upon the foregoing, the petition must be dismissed.

Accordingly, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is directed to

enter this Order on the Civil Docket by a notation incorporating it by

reference, and the entry is

Petitioner's 80C petition is DISMISSED.

Dated: July 31, 2002 XY %

Justice, Supérigr Court

FARUU GL

STATE OF MAINE

STEVEN A. MENDEZ MAINE CORRECTIONAL CENTER

VS.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant’s Attorney

STEVEN A. MENDEZ, PRO-SE

P.O. Box 250

‘S. Windham, ME 04082

Date of

Rotrw

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.