The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-2017-01
DARRIN E. UPTON,
Petitioner
DECISION AND ORDER
V.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent
The matter before the court is an appeal by Darrin E. Upton, an inmate at the
Maine State Prison, from a disciplinary proceeding (MSP-2016-1780) that resulted
in the imposition of sanctions against him for the offense of "trafficking," a Class A
violation. This appeal has been brought in accordance with 5 M.R.S. §11001
11008 (Administrative Procedure Act) and M.R.Civ.P. SOC.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a Disciplinary Report dated October 22, 2016, Officer Gregory Thayer
cited the Petitioner for the offense of "trafficking," and alleged as follows:
On the above date and approx. time I Ofc. Thayer was posted in
the Close Unit. While doing a cell search in CA-111 I found a lotion
container in Upton, D. #32898 tote with a foreign object in it. At this
time Upton had returned from chow and I had him take a seat while
checking out this item. As I dumped out the contents into another
container a syringe was revealed. It was wrapped in a clear rubber
glove and gauze. As I revealed this object I asked Upton what it was
and he responded with "It's not mine I don't know." IM had no further
answers and was informed he would be receiving a write up for
Trafficking.
(Record, hereinafter "R" at 3).
A photograph of the syringe was included as part of the Disciplinary Report.
The Petitioner received notice of the violation on November 7, 2016 and indicated
that he wished to call a fellow inmate as a witness at his disciplinary hearing. The
hearing as held as scheduled on November 10, 2016. The fellow inmate testified
that the syringe belonged to him. In the Summary of Hearing, the Hearing Officer
expressly stated: "I do not find prisoner ------- 's 1 statement as credible I feel that he
is only taking the blame because he has nothing to loose [sic]." (R. at 8). The
Hearing Officer found the Petitioner guilty "based on the officer's report and the
photo of the evidence. I do believe that this prisoner is guilty of having the Syringe
in his tote and he placed it there." (Id.).
The Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer or
designee. (R. at 11). The appeal was denied on November 29, 2016, which was
received by the Petitioner on December 5, 2016. (R. at 14). The Petitioner's appeal
to this court was filed on January 3, 201 7.
DISCUSSION
The Law Court has frequently reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of
administrative agency decisions is "deferential and limited." Passadumkeag
Mountain Friends v. Ed. of Envtl. Prof., 2014 ME 116, ~ 12, 102 A.3d 1181
(quoting Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Ed. of Envtl. Prot., 2010 ME 18, ~ 12, 989
A.2d 1128). The court is not permitted to overturn an agency's decision "unless it:
violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency's authority; is procedurally
unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by
bias or error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record." Kroger v
Departmental o(Environmental Protection, 2005 ME. 50, ~ 7, 870 A.2d 566. The
party seeking to vacate a state agency decision has the burden of persuasion on
1
The fellow inmate's identity is confidential and the Un-redacted record on
appeal has been sealed.
2
appeal. Anderson v Maine Public Employees Retirement System, 2009 ME. 134, ,r
3, 985 A.2d 501. In particular, a party seeking to overturn an agency's decision
bears the burden of showing that "no competent evidence" supports it. Stein v. Me.
Crim. Justice Academy, 2014 ME 82, ,r 11, 95 A.3d 612.
This court must examine "the entire record to determine whether, on the basis
of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably
find the facts as it did." Friends of Lincoln Lake v Board of Environmental
Protection, 2001 ME. 18 ,r13, 989 A. 2d 1128. The court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).
Determinations of the believability or credibility of the witnesses and evidence,
supported by substantial evidence in the record, should not be disturbed by this
court. Cotton v Maine Employment Security Commission, 43 l A. 2d 637, 640 (Me.
1981). The issue is not whether the court would have reached the same result the
agency did, but whether the "record contains competent and substantial evidence
that supports the result reached" by the agency. Seider v. Board of Examiners of
Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, ,r 8, 762 A.2d 551 quoting CWCO, Inc. v.
Superintendent ofInsurance, 1997 ME 226, ,r 6, 703 A. 2d 1258, 1261. A finding
of guilt must be "based on a determination that it is more probable than not that the
prisoner committed the violation." Policy 20. 1, Procedure C(l3).
The court has examined the entire administrative record and is satisfied that
there is ample competent evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt.
The task of assessing the credibility of the witnesses was exclusively the Hearing
Officer's.
CONCLUSION
The entry is:
The Petition for Judicial Review is DENIED and the decision of the
Respondent in MSP-2016-1780 is AFFIRMED.
3
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket of this case by
notation reference in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).
DATED: January 8, 2018
iJ.1·,·"I~~......,.....,,.,..,
Justice, Maine Superior Court
4