DECISION AND ORDER
William R. Stokes, Justice
matter before the Court is an appeal by Jose Quinones, 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. 80C.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
out in the Disciplinary Hearing Reports dated March 21, 2017
and authored by Lt. Lidia Burnham, the facts are as
January 12, fellow inmate Felix Gracia 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, Petitioner (whose full name is
Jose Ramon Natal 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 Gracia, was going to buy
"50 chickens for $600". Lt. Burnham parenthetically
interprets "50 chickens for $600" to mean 50 strips
of Suboxone for $600.
days later, on January 16, Gracia 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.
January 18, Petitioner called Carmen, who said his nephew had
not called. He gave her his nephew's phone number and
told her to text him. On Friday January 20, Petitioner called
his nephew, who said that the package would arrive Tuesday or
package arrived to Carmen on January 26, and the same day,
Gracia called Jose Santiago and discussed arrangements to
pick "it" up. Gracia also asked Carmen to open the
packages and count "them." She said she only
received 45, and Gracia was upset because he paid $600 for
50. She told Gracia on February 2 that when the "guy,
" parenthetically noted as Santiago, showed up at her
house, she gave him 50.
Suboxone had arrived at the prison by the time Lt.
Burnham's report was submitted on March 21.
March 21, Lt. Burnham's report was approved and forwarded
for investigation. An investigation was opened on March 22.
(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 did not indicate whether
he wished to call witnesses at the hearing. (C.R. 1).
requested access to phone recordings, forensic and physical
evidence, and all investigative reports. (C.R. 7). Respondent
claims that no forensic or physical evidence exists.
(Resp.'s Br. 10, n.3). Petitioner was denied access to
the S.I.I. (Security and Interior Invecgations) reports
because they are confidential. He was also told that he was
not allowed to access the phone recordings "for security
reasons." (C.R. 9).
Summary of Hearing, the space under the heading "name of
any witnesses and summary of testimony and any exhibits
presented" is blank. (C.R. 9). This would appear to
indicate that no evidence was presented at the hearing. Based
on the findings of the Hearing Officer (Capt. Abbott),
however, it is ...