Submitted On Briefs: June 26, 2019
Fitzgerald Carryl, appellant pro se
M. Frey, Attorney General, and James E. Fortin, Asst. Atty.
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee
Department of Corrections
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and
REPORTER OF DECISIONS
Fitzgerald Carryl, an inmate at the Maine State Prison,
appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Kennebec
County, Stokes, J.) denying his petition for review
of a final agency action and affirming a disciplinary action
that resulted in the imposition of sanctions against him for
the offense of assault. Because the record before us contains
no competent evidence to support the hearing officer's
determination that Carryl committed an assault, we vacate the
The following facts are drawn from the procedural record.
See Dubois v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot, 2017 ME 224,
¶ 3, 174 A.3d 314. In a disciplinary incident report
dated April 15, 2018, a corrections officer stated that
On the above date and time after finding out about the
assault on Prisoner [Y] I reviewed the camera system to try
to determine who assaulted him. On the date and time around
the assault [Carryl] is seen on the A-pod Camera 1 at 10:41
leaving cell 108 in A-pod and goes upstairs to cell 204, at
10:43 he is seen exiting the cell which meets the time frame
of the assault. Due to this new information Carryl... will be
receiving a write up for assault.
Carryl was then scheduled for a formal disciplinary hearing
on the assault violation, and he requested to call the
victim, Prisoner Y, as a witness. A disciplinary hearing was
held on May 1, 2018. The disciplinary hearing officer denied
Carryl's request to call Prisoner Y as a witness, stating
that Prisoner Y "is the victim and won't be called
because if he was to say that [Carryl] did do anything that
would put him in danger."
The hearing officer determined that Carryl "is guilty
based on the officer[']s report. I do believe that
base[d] on the report from the officer it is more probable
th[a]n not that [the] prisoner did do what's in the
report." The recommended disposition was a thirty-day
disciplinary restriction. Carryl appealed the finding of
guilt and the recommended disposition to the Chief
Administrative Officer who affirmed the hearing officer's
Carryl appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with 5
M.R.S. § 11001-11008 (2018) and M.R. Civ. P. 8OC. The
court denied Carryl's petition for review of the agency
action and affirmed the disciplinary action. Carryl now
appeals to us, see 5 M.R.S. § 11008; M.R. Civ.
P. 8OC(m), challenging the legality of the denial of his
request to call a witness at the disciplinary hearing and the
sufficiency of the evidence. "When the Superior Court
acts in an intermediate appellate capacity pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 8OC, we review the administrative agency's
decision directly for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or
findings not supported by substantial evidence in the
record." Richard v. Sec'y of State, 2018 ME
122, ¶ 21, 192 A.3d 611 (quotation marks omitted).
Right to ...