Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA09-1045
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                                          2 March  2010
JOSEPH MICHAEL GRIFFITH,
Plaintiff,
v.                                                                                              Anson County
No.  09 CVS  386
ALVIN W. KELLER; KEITH ACREE,
Defendants.
Appeal  by  plaintiff  from  order  entered  2  July  2009  by  Judge
Tanya Wallace in Anson County Superior Court.    Heard in the Court
of Appeals  9 December  2009.
Joseph Michael Griffith, pro se, plaintiff-appellant.
Attorney  General  Roy  Cooper,  by  Assistant  Attorney  General
Oliver G. Wheeler, IV, for defendants-appellees.
HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.
Joseph Michael Griffith  (“plaintiff”) appeals from the trial
court’s dismissal of his civil action against the Secretary of the
Department of Correction, Alvin W. Keller (“Secretary Keller”), and
the  public  information  officer  for  the  Department  of  Correction,
Keith Acree  (“Acree”).  1 After careful review, we affirm the trial
court’s order.
Background
1
Collectively referred to as  “defendants.”




-2-
On 26 March 2009, plaintiff submitted a public records request
to Secretary Keller in which he requested:
1.                                                                          A  complete  list  of  all  North  Carolina
                                                                            inmates that were transfered [sic] pursuant to
                                                                            the   interstate   corrections   compact                                                                                 (N.C.
General  Statutes                                                           148-119,                                                            148-120,                                             148-121)
from  2005 to present.
2.                                                                          All    documents    pertaining    to    these
                                                                            transfered  [sic] inmates  ([i.e.] request, all
                                                                            notices,  investigations,  reports,  memos,  e-
mails, repl[ies], etc.)[.]
3.                                                                          A list of all inmates from out of state .
.  that  were  transfered                                                                                                                                                                            [sic]  to  North
                                                                            Carolina   under   the   interstate   corrections
compact.
4.                                                                          All    documents    pertaining    to    these
transfered  [sic] inmates.
5.                                                                          All  policies,  laws,  rules  that  the  N.C.
Department  of  Correction  use[s]  pursuant  to
the interstate corrections compact.
On                                                                          6  May                                                              2009,  plaintiff  submitted  a  second  letter  to
Secretary Keller enclosing his original request.    On  13 May  2009,
on  behalf  of  Secretary  Keller,  Acree  sent  plaintiff  a  letter
denying  his  records  request.    Acree  stated  in  the  letter,  inter
alia:                                                                       “We  are  not  able  to  provide  lists  of  inmates  transferred
under  the  Interstate  Compact  as  most  inmates  are  transferred  for
their own safety and security and the compact limits the release of
such  information.”    Furthermore,  Acree  cited  Goble  v.  Bounds,  13
N.C.  App.                                                                  579,                                                                186  S.E.2d                                          638                (1972),  aff’d,   281  N.C.   307,   188
S.E.2d 347 (1972) for the proposition that prison inmates’ records
are confidential.    Acree also enclosed the  “Policy and Procedure”
for the “State of North Carolina Department of Correction Division
of Prisons[.]”




-3-
On 2 July 2009, plaintiff submitted a “Petition to Sue/Appeal
as  an  Indigent”  with  an  attached  complaint  in  which  he  alleged,
inter alia, that he had a lawful right to the records he requested
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 148-121(b) (2007) and that defendants
improperly  denied  his  request.     Plaintiff  sought,  inter  alia,
declaratory  and  injunctive  relief.    On  2  July  2009,  Judge  Tanya
Wallace   deemed   plaintiff’s   complaint   to   be                           “frivolous”   and
dismissed  the  action.    Plaintiff  now  appeals  the  trial  court’s
determination.
Analysis
I. Standard of Review
N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  1-110(b)  (2007) states in pertinent part:
Whenever a motion to proceed as an indigent is
filed  pro  se  by  an  inmate  in  the  custody  of
the  Department  of  Correction,  the  motion  to
proceed   as   an   indigent   and   the   proposed
complaint  shall  be  presented  to  any  superior
court  judge  of  the  judicial  district.    This
judge shall determine whether the complaint is
frivolous.    In the discretion of the court, a
frivolous case may be dismissed by order.
Therefore, the trial court in this matter was authorized to review
plaintiff’s   complaint   to   determine   whether,   in   the   court’s
discretion, the action was frivolous.    Id.
A claim “is frivolous if ‘a proponent can present no rational
argument  based  upon  the  evidence  or  law  in  support  of                 [it].’”
Rhyne  v.  K-Mart  Corp.,  149  N.C.  App.  672,  689,  562  S.E.2d  82,  94
(2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 668
(6th ed.  1990)), aff’d,  358 N.C.  160,  594 S.E.2d  1  (2004).
In   determining   whether   a   complaint   is
frivolous, the standard is not the same as in




-4-
a  ruling  on  a  motion  under  Rule                                        12(b)(6).
Instead, we look with a far more forgiving eye
in  examining  whether  a  claim  rests  on  a
meritless   legal   theory.                                                  We   review   such
dismissals for abuse of discretion.
Gray v. Bryant, 189 N.C. App. 527, 528,  658 S.E.2d  537, 538  (2008)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
II.    Plaintiff’s Arguments
Plaintiff argues on appeal: (1) he was entitled to the records
he requested pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 148-121(b) and that the
request  could  not  be  denied  under  subsection  (c)  by  anyone  other
than  Secretary  Keller  himself  and                                        (2)  the  trial  court  erred  in
ruling  that  his  complaint  was  frivolous  and  thereby  denied  his
right to a jury trial.    All other  “[a]ssignments of error not set
out in the appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or
argument  is  stated  or  authority  cited,                                  [have  been]  taken  as
abandoned.”    N.C. R. App. P.  28  (b)(6).
A.    Statutory Right to the Records Requested
N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  148-121 states:
(a)   Except  as  provided  in  subsection  (c)  of
this  section,  at  least                                                    30  days  before  a
transfer of a North Carolina inmate to another
state  system  pursuant  to  this  Article  is
approved,  the  Secretary  of  Correction  shall
give   notice   that   the   transfer   is   being
considered.    The  Secretary  shall  give  notice
of the proposed transfer by:
(1)   Notifying the district attorney
of  the  district  where  the  prisoner
was    convicted,    the    judge    who
presided  at  the  prisoner’s  trial,
the   law-enforcement   agency   that
arrested   the   prisoner,   and   the
victim of the prisoner’s crime;




-5-
(2)   Posting                                                                notice                        at                                the
courthouse  in  the  county  in  which
the prisoner was convicted; and
(3)   Notifying any other person who
has   made   a   written   request   to
receive notice of a transfer of the
prisoner.
(b)   Except  as  provided  in  subsection  (c)  of
this section, all written comments regarding a
transfer  are  public  records  under  General
Statutes Chapter  132.
(c)   If,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,
such    notice    or    disclosure    requirements
provided for in this section would jeopardize
the   safety   of   persons   or   property,   the
provisions of this section do not apply.
Plaintiff contends that under subsection  (b), the records he
requested   pertaining   to   all   inmates   transferred   under   the
Interstate   Corrections   Compact   since                                   2005   should   have   been
disclosed to him.    We disagree.
Clearly,  the  statute  was  intended  to  inform  parties  with  an
interest  in  an  inmate’s  whereabouts  that  the  inmate  may  be
transferred within thirty days.    N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  148-121(a)(1).
Under subsection  (b), any  “written comments” regarding a transfer
are  public  record  and  available  upon  request;  however,  we  do  not
interpret  this  subsection  to  mean  that  all  records,  including
internal  emails  and  memoranda,  pertaining  to  the  transfer  of
unnamed inmates are public record.
Moreover,  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                 §                             148-121(c)  clearly  gives  the
Secretary of the Department of Correction the ability to deny any
records request pertaining to inmate transfer if such information
“would jeopardize the safety of persons or property.”   Id.   Acree’s




-6-
letter to plaintiff stated that an inmate is typically transferred
for his or her own safety and that plaintiff was not entitled to a
list of transferred inmates and all corresponding records.
Plaintiff does not contend that N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  148-121(c)
was  not  a  proper  ground  for  rejecting  his  request;  rather,  he
claims on appeal that only Secretary Keller, not a representative
of  Keller  such  as  Acree,  could  deny  his  request  according  to  the
plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 148-121(c).   However, plaintiff
did  not  raise  this  issue  before  the  trial  court.    Therefore,  we
decline to address this specific argument on appeal.   N.C. R. App.
P.  10(a)(1);  Wood  v.  Weldon,  160  N.C.  App.  697,  699,  586  S.E.2d
801, 803 (2003), cert. denied, 358 N.C. 550, 600 S.E.2d 469 (2004).
Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we find that N.C. Gen.
Stat.  §  148-121(c)  was  a  proper  basis  for  denial  of  plaintiff’s
records request.
Additionally,   plaintiff   not   only   requested   documents
pertaining specifically to the inmates’ transfer; he also requested
all  documents  pertaining  to  these  inmates  in  general.    Goble  v.
Bounds,  which  has  not  been  overruled  by  statute,  states  that
records  pertaining  to  prison  inmates  are  confidential  and  only
certain individuals have statutory authority to view such records.
13 N.C. App. at  581,  186 S.E.2d at  640  (“[N.C. Gen. Stat]  §  148-74
states  the  administration  of  the  Records  Section  is  under  the
control   and   direction   of   the   Director   of   Probation,   the
Commissioner  of  Correction,  and  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of
Paroles,  and                                                                 [N.C.  Gen.  Stat.]   §   148-76  states  the  information




-7-
collected  shall  be  made  available  to  law  enforcement  agencies,
courts,   correctional   agencies,   or   other   officials   requiring
criminal  identification,  crime  statistics,  and  other  information
respecting  crimes  and  criminals.    These  records  are  confidential
and only named parties have access to them.”).   Plaintiff is not a
member  of  the  class  of  persons  specified  by  statute.    Id.;  N.C.
Gen. Stat.  §§  148-74,  -76  (2007).
In sum, plaintiff’s complaint asserted that he was entitled to
the  records  requested  pursuant  to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  148-121(b).
The right to obtain records of inmate transfer under this statute
is  limited  by  subsection                                                   (c),  which  gives  the  Secretary  of  the
Department of Correction the ability to deny the request if release
of the records could jeopardize the safety of another.   The denial
of plaintiff’s request was based on subsection  (c), and plaintiff
does not contend that this portion of the statute was inapplicable
in  this  situation.    We  find  that  subsection  (c),  in  fact,  was  a
proper basis for denying plaintiff’s request.   Because we hold that
plaintiff’s argument rested on a meritless legal theory, we find no
abuse  of  discretion  in  the  trial  court’s  determination  that  the
action was frivolous.   Thus, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s
complaint.
B.    Denial of Plaintiff’s Right to A Jury Trial
Defendant claims that his constitutional right to a jury trial
was violated when the trial court dismissed his civil action.    We
disagree.   The trial court is given statutory authority under N.C.
Gen. Stat.  §  1-110(b) to dismiss claims that are deemed frivolous




-8-
prior to a jury trial.   Moreover, plaintiff did not request a jury
trial in accord with N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  1A-1, Rule  38(b)  (2007).
Conclusion
Because  there  was  no  legal  basis  for  plaintiff’s  claim,  the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint  on  the  ground  that  it  was  frivolous.    The  order  of  the
trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 09-1045-5.pdf

South Carolina Law