Summary
holding that the Morris Rules "are state rules and regulations that govern the conduct of classification and disciplinary proceedings at the ACI, and are to be enforced, if at all, by state machinery."
Summary of this case from Lynch v. WhitmanOpinion
C.A. No. 00-220L
April 24, 2001
ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF(S) Jose Doctor, Pro Se Cranston, RI.
ATTORNEY(S) FOR DEFENDANT(S) Patricia Anne Coyne-Fague, Esq. Cranston, RI.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob Hagopian, dated February 21, 2001, hereby is accepted and adopted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A short explanation is necessary.
It should be clear from this Court's decision in Cugini v. Ventetuolo, 781 F. Supp. 107 (D.R.I. 1992) that an inmate at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) does not have a cause of action in this District Court for contempt against personnel of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections for an alleged violation of the Morris Rules. This is so because the Morris Rules are not contained in or part of a decree issued by this Court. The Morris Rules were regulations adopted by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections under the Rhode Island Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to an agreement with the inmate class in theMorris case. Judge Pettine attached a copy of the Morris Rules to his Order in Morris IV so that the text of those Rules would be published and the terms thereof known to all, but the rules were not integrated into any decree of this Court. In that case, Judge Pettine ordered that theMorris Rules remain in effect at the ACI, pursuant to the agreement of the parties in the Morris case. But, those Rules are state rules and regulations that govern the conduct of classification and disciplinary proceedings at the ACI, and are to be enforced, if at all, by state machinery.
In L'Heureux v. Dep't of Corrs., 708 A.2d 549 (R.I. 1998), the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that the "contested case" provisions of the Rhode Island Administrative Procedures Act do not apply to classification and disciplinary proceedings at the ACI. Thus, an inmate cannot appeal the results of such proceedings claiming a violation of theMorris Rules. That is a matter of state law and within the prerogative of the Rhode Island Supreme Court to decide. However, that Court made the gratuitous statement that a violation of the Morris Rules could form the basis of a cause of action for contempt in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In making that statement, the Rhode Island Supreme Court was clearly mistaken. It obviously was not aware of this Court's decision in Cugini, which was affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion. See 966 F.2d 1440. For the text of that opinion, see Cugini v. Ventetuolo, No. 92-1092, 1992 WL 144699 (1st Cir. June 26, 1992).
The long and short of it is that an inmate at the ACI, who claims that the Morris Rules were violated by personnel at the ACI, must make an allegation of a federal constitutional violation and bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in order to be heard in this Court.
Since this plaintiff has not stated a cause of action under § 1983 of federal constitutional dimension, this case must be dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgement for all defendants forthwith.