# Mendez v. State of Maine

> Superior Court of Maine · July 31, 2002

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807462

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** July 31, 2002
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Thomas E. Humphrey
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807462

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807462. Public record. Not legal advice.