The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-19-04
NICHOLAS GLADU,
Petitioner
V. DECISION AND ORDER
(M.R.Civ. P. SOC)
MAINE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent
Before the court is Petitioner Nicholas Gladu's (Gladu) M.R.Civ. P. 80C Appeal of
Final Agency Action against the Maine Department of Corrections (DOC). For the reasons
explained below, the court finds that Gladu's appeal should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Gladu is a prisoner incarcerated at the Maine State Prison (MSP) in Wa1Ten, Maine.
Gladu, as part of an administrative proceeding in front of the State of Maine Board of
Licensure in Medicine (BLM), wished to send documents to that agency via mail. Because
the mail contained nine pages of documents, it exceeded his weekly limit for free postage.
Gladu asked that it be classified as "privileged mail" so that 1VISP would affix the necessary
postage without charge to him. After 1VISP refused, Gladu filed a grievance on September
24, 2018, which l\1SP denied. Gladu appealed the decision until his administrative
remedies were exhausted, and then filed a petition with this court challenging MSP's
refusal to consider his mail to BLM p1ivileged mail .
STANDARD OF REVIEW
vVhen an ad mini strati ve agency's decision is appealed pursuant to M.R.Ci v. P. 80C,
this court reviews the agency's decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors oflaw, or
findings not supported by the evidence. Centamore v. Dep't of Human Servs., 664 A.2d
369, 370 (Me. 1995). "An administrative decision will be sustained if, on the basis of the
entire record before it, the agency could have fairly and reasonably found the facts as it
did." Seider v. Bd. of Exam'rs of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, ~ 9, 762 A.2d 551. The
court will "not attempt to second-guess the agency on matters failing within its realm of
expertiset meaning judicial review is limited to "determining whether the agency's
conclusions are unreasonable, unjust or unlawful in light of the record." lmagineering, Inc .
v. Superintendent of Ins., 593 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1991). "When a dispute involves a
board or agency's interpretation of a statute it administers, 'the agency's interpretation,
although not conclusive, is entitled to great deference and will be upheld unless the statute
plainly compels a contrary result."' SAD 3 Educ. Ass'n v. RSV 3 Bd. ofDirs., 2018 ME 29,
~ 14, 180 A.3d 125
DISCUSSION
Gladu contends that it was clearly erroneous for iv1SP to refuse to consider his mail
privileged maiJ for the purposes of the required postage. Department Policy 21.2) Prisoner
2
Mail, generally states that "[t]here shall be no limit on the amount of outgoing mail a
prisoner is allowed to send, provided the prisoner has sufficient funds to pay for postage."
Policy 21.2, Proc. A(4). The policy fu1ther states that every prisoner shall be "offered free
postage for up to two (2) one-ounce letters per week, which may not be carried over from
week to week." Id. Proc. B( l ). :When "a piece of general mail is not included within a
prisoner's free mail allotment and the prisoner does not pay for the correct amount of
postage, the mail shall be returned to the prisoner." Id. Proc B(l l).
Gladu relied on Policy 21.2, Proc. D(l l), which provides that privileged mail shall
have free postage affixed. Policy 21.2, Proc. D(l) defines privileged mail (also known as
legal mail) as:
Correspondence concerning a legal matter or official government business
involving the prisoner if the correspondence is between that prisoner and any
of the following:
a. attorney, paralegal, or private investigator;
b. judge, court clerk, or court;
c. Maine Human Rights Commission;
d. appointed or elected government official, including, but not limited to,
the President, the Governor, commissioner of a state agency (other than
the Commissioner of Co1Tections, except as set out below), federal or
state senator or representative, or tribal chief;
e. advocate from a government agency; and
f. legal advocacy organization, including, but not limited to, American
Civil Liberties Union of Maine, Maine Equal Justice Partners, GLBTQ
Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Disability Rights Maine,
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and National Lawyers Guild.
3
Department Policy 21.2, Proc. D(l). Gladu argues that his mail to BLM falls under 21.2,
Proc. D(l)(d), as mail to a state agency, and that DOC's interpretation of the policy
excluding his mail from that clause, is clearly erroneous and subject to judicial review.
Because independent contractors provide medical advice and services to DOC prisoners,
and are "frequently subject to complaints of inadequate medical care by [M]DOC
prisoners," Gladu argues that the reason DOC refused to consider his mail privileged mail
was to "insulate its contracted medical providers from professional oversight." Pet. 's Brief
at 2-3.
DOC, on the other hand, argues that Gladu's interpretation of the relevant clause is
overbroad, and that in order for mail to a state agency to be privileged, the correspondence
must be with the commissioner of the state agency, an agency official that was appointed
or elected, or an advocate from the agency. In short, DOC argues that because Gladu's
mail correspondence was addressed only to BLM itself, and not to an appointed or elected
BLM member, his correspondence was not privileged mail as defined in the policy. DOC
points out that mail to a state agency itself, with the exception of the IVIaine Human Rights
Commission, is not considered privileged. The Department also dismisses Gladu' s
argument that the exclusion works to insulate medical providers at the prison from
professional oversight by noting that, in addition to privileged mail, DOC prisoners may
also correspond with BLM by using the free postage they are afforded each week, and by
paying for the necessary postage themselves. Accordingly, DOC argues that, even though
4
Gladu may have been unable to pay for the necessary postage to send all the documents he
wished to within a single week, his lack of funds does not render the policy a meaningful
barrier to professional oversight by BLM.
The court's review in Rule 80C appeals is "deferential and limited." Watts v. Bd. of
Envtl. Prot., 2014 ME 91, ~ 5, 97 A.3d 115. A party appealing a decision committed to the
reasonable discretion of an agency has the burden of demonstrating that the decisionmaker
abused its discretion in reaching the decision under appeal. See Sager v. Town of
Bowdoinham, 2004 ME 40, ~ 11, 845 A.2d 567. "An abuse of discretion may be found
where an appellant demonstrates that the decisionmaker exceeded the bounds of the
reasonable choices available to it, considering the facts and circumstances of the particular
case and the governing law." Id. As noted above, an agency's interpretation of its own rule
or statute is entitled to great deference and will be upheld unless it "plainly compels a
contrary result." SAD 3 Educ. Ass'n v. RSV 3 Bd. of Dirs., 2018 l\lIE 29, ~ 14, 180 A.3d
125; see also Forest Ecology Network v. land Use Regulation Comm'n, 2012 ME 36, ~
41, 39 A.3d 74 (quoting Nelson v. Bayroot, 2008 IvlE 91, 1f 17,953 A.2d 378 ("We give
'considerable deference' to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, and the agency's
interpretation will not be set aside 'unless the regulation or rule compels a contrary
interpretation.").
Gladu is unable to overcome this burden. As DOC correctly asserts, the language of
the rule clearly requires the mail to be addressed to an elected or appointed official of a
5
state agency in order for it to be considered privileged mail. This is how DOC interprets
this rule and the court cannot say that its interpretation exceeds the bounds of the reasonable
choices available to it. To the contrary, given that the clause allows privileged mail to an
"appointed or elected government official," and not a state agency as Gladu contends (the
Ivlaine Human Rights Commission being the sole exception), the Department's
interpretation much more closely tracks the language of the clause than the one advanced
by Gladu.
Although DOC's interpretation resulted in Gladu being unable to send his
documents to BLM in one week, the court also agrees that the rule is not a meaningful
barrier to professional oversight by BLM. The rule does not prevent Gladu from sending
privileged mail to BLM; it only requires that he send the mail to an elected or appointed
government official within BLM, assuming the mail otherwise meets the definition of
"privileged" mail. That Gladu failed to properly address his mail does not render the rule
a barrier to professional oversight by BLM. Because the Department's interpretation is
reasonable, and because it docs not unreasonably restrict mail to BLM or protect the
medical providers for the correctional system from BLM oversight, Gladu's claim must
fail.
6
CONCLUSION
The entry is:
The Petition for Judicial Review is DENIED and the decision of the Department of
Corrections is AFFIRMED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order into the docket by reference pursuant
to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a). \.....
November 26, 2019
William R. Stokes
Justice, Superior Court
7