The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT /
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION LJq ~
DOCKET NO. AP-06-3V
Z n~l
.... \.1i
~u 0 j')
IrH l .:..... L
0
l -1 3 I
"). er-,.l\oJo<'
J: r -
i_,.
C' .A.. (\ '1 -
!.•• J \
?,-,' <-
.'. ......;_ ('
C'!"
). /
JAMES P. MOORE
Petitioner
v. ORDER ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
CHARLES ABBOTT, ESQ.,
HON. EUGENE BEAULIEU, and
MARVIN GLAZIER, ESQ.
Respondents
AUG 0 ~ luul
Before the Court is Respondents Honorable Eugene Beaulieu, Marvin
Glazier and Charles Abbott's ("Respondents") motion to dismiss Petitioner
James P. Moore's ("Petitioner") appeal pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C and 1
M.R.S.A. § 409(1) of Respondents' failure to comply with Petitioner's Freedom of
Access Act ("FOA") request. Specifically, Petitioner requested access to files,
records and reports compiled during Respondents' review of allegations of
misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutors in connection with the trial of
Dennis Dechaine for the 1988 murder of Sarah Cherry. This review was
conducted at the request of Attorney General G. Steven Rowe.
Respondents argue that Petitioner's appeal must be dismissed because of
a failure to comply with time limits established by 1 M.R.S.A. § 409(1) as well as
for a failure to properly serve process on Respondents.
In relevant part, the FOA sets out the following requirement regarding
time limits for appeal:
If any body or agency or official, who has custody or control of any
public record, shall refuse permission to so inspect or copy or
abstract a public record, this denial shall be made by the body or
1
agency or official in writing, stating the reason for the deniaL
within 5 working days of the request for inspection by any person.
Any person aggrieved by denial may appeal therefrom, within 5
working days of the receipt of the written notice of deniaL to any
Superior Court within the State.
1 M.R.S.A. § 409(1). Respondents argue that because Petitioner's initial request
for information was dated August 30,2006 and because his appeal was not filed
until September 20, 2006, the appeal is untimely.
Respondents' argument ignores the uncontroverted fact that they never
responded to Petitioner's request. By its terms, § 409(1)'s time limit for filing an
appeal "applies only when a written notice of denial is received by the citizen
who requested access. The statute, however, specifies no time limit when a de
facto denial occurs as a result of a governmental agency's failure to fulfill its
statutory duty." Cook v. Lisbon Sch. Comm., 682 A.2d 672, 679 (Me. 1996). That is
precisely the situation in this case. Because Petitioner never received written
notice that his request had been denied, his time limit for filing an appeal was
not controlled by § 409(1).
Because the time limit for Petitioner's appeal was not controlled by §
409(lt the general time limits for Rule 80C appeals applied. See id. Under Rule
80C when review is sought of lithe failure or refusal of an agency to act/' time
limits for review are provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3). M.R. Civ. P. 80C(b). That
statute states that in such a situation, lithe petition for review shall be filed within
6 months of the expiration of the time within which the action should reasonably
have occurred. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3). Petitioner's FOA request was dated August
30, 2006 and he filed his appeal in this case on September 20, 2006. Under this
standard, Petitioner's complaint was clearly timely.
2
Respondents' argument regarding insufficiency of service of process is
also unavailing. Respondents argue that, per M.R Civ. P. 4(d)(I), Petitioner was
required to personally serve each Respondent in the manner provided by that
rule. The requirements for service on a Rule 80C appeal, however, are not
controlled by Rule 4(d)(I), but by Rule 80C(a). Under that rule,"[a] petition for
review shall be served as provided by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11003." M.R. Civ. P. 80C(a). 5
M.R.S.A. § 11003, in turn, states that "[t]he petition for review shall be served by
certified mail, return receipt requested, upon: A. The agency; B. All parties to the
agency proceeding; and C. The Attorney General." Petitioner complied with
these requirements. As a result, Respondents were properly served. 1
Therefore, the entry is:
Respondents' motion to dismiss for untimely filing is DENIED.
Respondents' motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of
process is DENIED.
The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference
pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Dated at Portland, Maine this 2l"'~ day of jl(tf,.v.~ ,2007.
!ldL
Robert E. Crowley
Justice, Superior Court
1In their brief, Respondents summarily state that they "deny that they are a body
or agency or official" within the meaning of the FOA. At oral argument, counsel
for Respondents expanded upon this assertion, arguing that application of the
four factor test for determination of whether an entity qualifies as a public
agency demonstrates that Respondents do not qualify. See Dow v. Caribou
Chamber of Commerce and Indus., 2005 ME 113, err 12, 884 A.2d 667, 670. This
analysis, however, requires a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case that would be inappropriate on the present motion to dismiss.
3
Date Filed 9-20-06 CUMBERLAND Docket No. -----'A~P'--~0~6~-~42___~__
County
Action _ _8_0_C_A_P~PE_A_L"
_ _~ _
• JAMES P. MOORE CHARLES ABBOTT, ESQ
HON EUGENE BEAULIEU
MARVIN GLAZIER, ESQ
YS.
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
JAMES P. MOORE (PRO SE) SETH HARROW, ESQ. (BEAULIEU & GLAZIEI
PO BOX 1032 PO BOX 919
BRUNSWICK ME 04011 BANGOR ME 04002-0919
947-6915
JOHN COLE, ESQ. (ABBOTT)
PO BOX 3200
AUBURN, ME 04212-3/00
..,,..,