Preview:

In the Circu it Court for A llegany Cou nty Case No. C-02-021277 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 142 September Term, 2004 ______________________________________

RICHARD L. MASSEY, JR.

v.

SECRETARY, DEPARTM ENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

______________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. Bell, C.J., Dissents and Co ncurs _______________________________________ Filed: November 21, 2005

The State De partmen t of P ublic Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) and the Division of Corre ction (DO C), a unit w ithin the Departm ent, have ad opted certa in "directives" that (1) create and define administrative offenses for w hich DOC inmates are subject to administrative discipline, (2) prescribe the kinds of discipline, including the revocation of earned diminution credits against the inmate's sentence, available upon a finding of guilt, (3) set forth the procedure for charging inmates with offenses, adjudicating their guilt or innocence of those offenses, and imposing discipline, and (4) establish procedures for receiving, considering, and adjudicating complaints made by inmates regarding policies, procedures, and conditions in the prison. The question before us is whether certain of those directives constitute regulations that must be adopted in conformance with the State Admin istrative Proce dure Ac t. We shall answer that question in the affirmative, and, because it is undisputed that they were not so adopted, we shall declare them ineffective.

BACKGROUND Procedural Construct The State prison system is under the direction and control of DOC which, as noted, is a unit within DPSCS. Subject to the authority vested by law in the Secretary of DPSCS, the Commissioner of Correction is in charg e of D OC. See Maryland Code,

Download Massey v. Dept. of Corrections.pdf

Maryland Law