Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1394 September Term, 2009

RAY LUCKY WILLIAMS

v.

CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, ET AL.

Eyler, James R., Wright, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J. Filed: November 3, 2010

On July 24, 2009, appellant, Ray Lucky Williams, filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Washington County seeking judicial review of an administrative agency decision. Along with his petition, Williams filed a request for waiver of prepayment of the filing fee. On August 4, 2009, the court denied Williams's request and ordered that the "[p]etition be accepted but not processed until $30.00 is paid." Williams timely appealed. The single issue before this Court is whether the circuit court properly denied Williams's request for waiver of prepayment of the filing fee.1 For the reasons stated below, we affirm the court's judgment. Facts and Procedural History On March 27, 2009, Williams filed a request for administrative remedy with the Maryland Division of Correction ("DOC"), challenging his transfer from the Eastern Correctional Institution ("ECI") to the Maryland Correctional Institution in Hagerstown ("MCI-H"). In support of his request, Williams alleged the following: The referenced transfer occurred despite the ECI administration's

1

In his brief, Williams presented the following questions: Do prisoners have a constitutional right to unabridged access to the courts to redress meritorious claims for injury done to them in their person or property? Did the lower court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or, in the alternative, authorize a payment schedule commensurate with Appellant's financial means, where Appellant substantially met the criteria set forth in Section 5-1002(c), of the Prisoner Litigation Act ("PLA")?

1.

2.

knowledge that Petitioner has potential known and unknown enemies in the Hagerstown and Cumberland prison complexes stemming from his participation in a murder investigation conducted at the Baltimore City Detention in, or about, Feb. 2006 . . . . Petitioner was consequently transferred from [the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classification Center] to ECI for his protection. Williams stated that, by filing the request, he "seeks redress for the ECI administration's acts of failing to abide by policies and procedures and for subjecting [him] to retaliation for using the [administrative remedy procedure] process in good faith."2 Specifically, Williams sought to "be transferred back to ECI and housed on the East Compound." On March 30, 2009, the Warden, or Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") Coordinator at MCI-H, dismissed Williams's request "for procedural reasons." The ARP Coordinator stated that the request did "not provide sufficient information to determine the basis for investigation." Accordingly, Williams was instructed to "[r]esubmit [his] request by 4/16/09, and include . . . names of known enemies and verification." In addition, Williams was asked to "[p]rovide proof [that he was] transferred for reasons other than regular transfer." Williams declined to resubmit his request and, instead, appealed the ARP Coordinator's decision to the Commissioner of Correction on April 1, 2009. Williams argued that the dismissal was "improper, serves to deny [him] due process and places [his] safety and well being at jeopardy." On April 9, 2009, the Commissioner of

Williams alleged that he was subjected to retaliation after he filed a complaint with the Inmate Grievance Office that was later reviewed by the Circuit Court for Somerset County.
-2-

2

Correction dismissed the appeal "for procedural reasons," specifically because Williams "failed to resubmit the request in accordance with the coordinator's instructions." On April 23, 2009, Williams appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Executive Director of the Inmate Grievance Office ("IGO"). According to Williams, "the respective dismissals by the ARP coordinators are arbitrary, capricious and in bad faith." In addition, Williams alleged that "[t]he dismissals serve to deter [his] use of the ARP process, deny [him] due process, reflect a deliberate and egregious indifference for [his] safety and violates DOC policy and procedure." By letter dated June 25, 2009, the Executive Director of the IGO dismissed Williams's appeal, stating, in pertinent part: . . . [A]ny grievance complaining of a transfer is due to be filed, if at all, within 30 days of the transfer. I note from a[] . . . report dated June 24, 2009 that you were transferred from ECI to [MCI-H] on March 16, 2009. This grievance was filed on April 27, 2009. I conclude, therefore, that you failed to file your grievance within the 30 days required by COMAR 12.07.01.05(A). Since this time limitation has not been waived for good cause shown, COMAR 12.07.01.05(F), COMAR 12.07.01.06(B)(3) requires that it be dismissed as wholly lacking in merit. To the extent that you might argue that your complaint is subject to the ARP process, I note that your ARP complaint to the Warden was dismissed on March 30, 2009 pending resubmission with additional information. You apparently refused to do so, instead appealing to the Commissioner. The Commissioner then denied your appeal for your failure to resubmit your ARP complaint in accordance with the Warden's instructions. * * * I conclude that you failed to properly exhaust the ARP process by using all the steps available so that your complaint would be addressed on the merits. Since the exhaustion requirement has not been waived for good cause shown, COMAR 12.07.01.06(B)(4) requires that this grievance be
-3-

dismissed as wholly lacking in merit. On July 24, 2009, Williams filed a petition for judicial review of the IGO's decision in the circuit court, along with a request for waiver of prepayment of the filing fee. In support of his request for waiver of the fee, Williams stated that he is incarcerated, has no money, and earns approximately $21.50 per month, which he spends on necessities such as "soap, detergent, toiletries, etc." In his petition for review, Williams averred that he "possesses a reasonable likelihood of success on issues of serious concern." To support his allegations, Williams attached a document wherein he made the following two arguments, regarding the IGO's decision: I. Grievant's use of the ARP process to address retaliation was proper and timely filed. Grievant's transfer was not a case management action pursuant to the DOC Case Management Manual (CCM).

II.

Williams also included his Offender Traffic History (a list of his cell assignments) from July 2, 2008, through June 3, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the court denied Williams's request for waiver of the filing fee. In its order, the court stated: This civil action is governed by Section 5-1001 et seq., Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (Prisoner Litigation Act) and Maryland Rule 1325 requiring payment of filing fees unless all or a portion is waived by the court. See also Massey v. Inmate Grievance, 153 Md. App. 691 (2003). The entire filing fee may not be waived unless, from information provided, the court finds that the inmate is indigent, not likely to accumulate sufficient funds to pay the filing fee within a reasonable time and possesses a reasonable likelihood of success on issues of serious
-4-

concern. Based upon the information provided, the court may waive a portion of the filing fee unless the complaint is determined to be frivolous, but must require at least 25%. Upon review of the papers presented and a failure to show sufficient cause for waiver pursuant to Sec. 5-1002(c), it is this 4 day of August, 2009, ORDERED that the Motion/Petition be accepted but not processed until $30.00 is paid to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Washington County. (Emphasis in original). Discussion Williams argues that he "substantially met the criteria" set forth in the Prisoner Litigation Act ("PLA") Section 5-1002(c) and, therefore, "the lower court abused its discretion in denying [his] motion to proceed without payment of the filing fee or, in the alternative, authorizing a payment schedule commensurate with [his] financial means."3

The filing fee was reduced to $30.00 pursuant to

Download Williams v. Circuit Court.pdf

Maryland Law