pratt v. menard

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Docket No. 423-7-16 Wnev
LEO PRATT .
Plaintiff
FILED
Vv.

LISA MENARD, Commissioner,
Vermont Department of Corrections
Defendant

DECISION
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Leo Pratt is an inmate in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of
Corrections. In this case, he seeks Rule 75 review of a disciplinary conviction for fashioning a
weapon out of a pen. He alleges that the conviction was wrongful because the corrections
officers’ reports of the incident referred to an earlier occasion in which he was alleged to have
done the same but for which the conviction had been expunged. He also asserted additional
reasons: that the disciplinary report was issued more than 24 hours after the incident, that the
conviction depended on false and misleading information, and that he is being singled out
unfairly.

Mr. Pratt seeks summary judgment on the expungement issue. The Department of
Corrections seeks summary judgment on the grounds that the conviction is supported by “some
evidence,” and it argues that Mr. Pratt’s other arguments do not undermine his conviction.

Several reports by corrections officers document in detail the incident at issue in this
case: that Mr. Pratt secured paper and string around a pen to stiffen it, making it fit for use as a
weapon, and concealed it in his cell, Those reports refer to an earlier incident in which Mr. Pratt
had similarly fashioned a pen into a weapon and then used it to repeatedly stab a corrections
officer. He was convicted of a disciplinary violation for the earlier incident and he appealed to
the superintendent. The superintendent failed to respond within 30 days and, for that reason, his
conviction was expunged. See Directive 410.01, Procedural Guidelines § (9)(c) (“Failure to
respond to the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days will result in the dismissal of the
disciplinary action, and staff will expunge the DR packet from the inmate’s file and the
database.”’).

Mr. Pratt’s principal argument in this case is that because the officers’ reports of the
current incident referred to the earlier incident, which was supposed to have been expunged, the

| It is not clear that Mr. Pratt pursues these other arguments on review. He does-not seek summary judgment on
them and does not oppose summary judgment in the State’s favor on them.
current violation is tainted and should be reversed and expunged.”

When reviewing an inmate disciplinary decision, the court “need find only that there was
‘some evidence’ in order to uphold a conviction.” King v. Gorezyk, 2003 VT 34, 7, 175 Vt.
220 (quoting LaFaso v. Patrissi, 161 Vt. 46, 49 (1993)). This standard is met when “there is any
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Jd.

The “some evidence” standard is easily satisfied in this case. Regardless of whether the
corrections officers’ reports should or should not have referred to the earlier incident, they all
clearly document specific behavior—fashioning a weapon out of a pen—that gave rise to the
current violation. The reports are compelling even if one were to completely ignore references to
the earlier incident. There is no basis for relief on this record.

Mr. Pratt does not appear to be pursuing on review the other arguments he raised
administratively. The State seeks summary judgment on those arguments as well. There is no
rule that a disciplinary report must be issued within 24 hours of the precipitating incident, and
there is no basis in the record for any claim of false or misleading information or being singled
out unfairly. Thus, the State is entitled to summary judgment.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Pratt’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the
State’s motion is granted.

th
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this Alo day of May 2017.
-
Wey Wt DecebnsH

Mary Milfs Teachout
Superior Judge

2 In arelated case, Mr. Pratt challenges the meaning and scope of a proper expungement and whether the earlier
disciplinary violation that was supposed to have been expunged actually was. See Pratt v. Menard, No. 419-7-16
(Vt. Super, Ct.).

2