DECISION AND ORDER
William R. Stokes, Justice, Maine Superior Court
matter before the Court is an appeal by Felix Gracia, an
inmate at the Maine State Prison, from a disciplinary
proceeding 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. 8OC.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
out in the Disciplinary Hearing Report dated March 21, 2017,
and authored by Lt. Lidia Burnham, the facts are as
January 12, Petitioner gave his sister, Carmen, a phone
number for "Ramon's nephew" and told her to
give him $600 and that "they are 50."
January 12 and January 16, fellow inmate Jose Ramon Quinones
called his nephew to tell him that a woman from Connecticut,
who Lt. Burnham parenthetically states is Carmen, was going
to give him $600 and that her brother, parenthetically noted
as Petitioner, was going to buy "50 chickens for
$600." Lt. Burnham interprets "50 chickens for
$600" to mean 50 strips of Suboxone for $600.
January 16, Petitioner spoke with Carmen and told her to call
the "guy" and tell him to remove the tinfoil.
According to Lt. Burhnam's report, Suboxone comes in
individual packages with tinfoil on the inside. Also on
January 16, Petitioner told Carmen that someone was going to
call and meet her at her house.
spoke with Carmen on January 26 and she told him that the
package arrived. The same day, Petitioner called Jose
Santiago and told him that he needed to call because
"it" was there and waiting for him to pick
"it" up. On January 29, Petitioner called Santiago
again who said that he had made arrangements to "pick
that up" on Wednesday.
January 30, Petitioner called Carmen and told her that
"El titere, " who Lt. Burnham parenthetically
claimed was Santiago, would call her later and meet her on
Wednesday. Petitioner also asked Carmen to open the packages
and count "them." She said she only received 45,
and Petitioner was upset because he paid $600 for 50.
February 2, Petitioner called Carmen who said that the
"guy, " noted parenthetically as Santiago, showed
up at her house and she gave him 50.
February 11 and February 20, Petitioner attempted several
phone calls to Santiago, who did not answer, so he asked
Carmen to contact him and get the "stuff back. On
February 20. Petitioner told Carmen that he spoke with the
"guy, " parenthetically identified as Santiago. On
February 28, Petitioner told Carmen that he hoped that over
the weekend he was going to get the "stuff in."
Between February 28 and March 21, no Suboxone arrived at the
March 22, Lt. Burnham's report was approved and forwarded
for investigation, and an investigation was opened. (C.R. 4).
Petitioner was read the report and charged with a trafficking
violation. (C.R. 3, 4). Petitioner did not make a statement
in regards to the opening of the investigation. (C.R. 4). On
March 27, Petitioner received notice of the hearing scheduled
for March 30 and indicated that he did not wish to call
witnesses at the hearing. (C.R. 1).
requested access to all staff, video, phone, and forensic
evidence. (C.R. 6). He also requested, in a written and
undated document, to examine Lt. Burnham, although he did not
otherwise request to present any witnesses. (C.R. 1, 6, 8).
Respondent contends that no video or forensic records, or
additional staff reports exist. (Resp.'s Br. 9, ...