Morgan v. Menard ( 2017 )

Morgan v. Menard, 352-6-17 Wncv (Teachout, J., Oct. 27, 2017).
[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the
accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Docket No. 352-6-17 Wncv
MATTHEW J. MORGAN
Plaintiff
v.
LISA MENARD et al.
Defendants
DECISION
The State’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff–Inmate Matthew Morgan initiated this case seeking Rule 75 review of a
disciplinary infraction. He asked the court to expunge the violation and award him $60 for the
lost opportunity to work in the facility. Sometime thereafter, presumably after the filing of the
complaint, the DOC voluntarily expunged Mr. Morgan’s disciplinary violation. The State then
filed a motion to dismiss because the matter had become moot, noting that an award of damages
is not appropriately within the scope of a Rule 75 claim. Mr. Morgan appears to accept that the
claim for damages is impermissible in this proceeding. However, he argues that the court should
not dismiss this case without clearly ordering that there can be no collateral consequences of the
conviction now that it is expunged.
There can be no doubt that any challenge to the disciplinary violation is moot because the
DOC voluntarily expunged it.
An award of damages in the first instance is inconsistent with the court’s Rule 75
authority. See V.R.C.P. 75(d) (“The judgment of the court shall affirm, reverse, or modify the
decision under review as provided by law.”).
The court declines to retain jurisdiction over a moot case due to collateral consequences
that have not been identified, remain completely abstract, and may never come to fruition. “It is
well-settled that this Court has jurisdiction to decide only ‘actual controversies arising between
adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.’” Chase v. State, 2008 VT 107,
¶ 11, 184 Vt. 430 (2008) (citation omitted). Here, there is no identified collateral consequence so
there can be no controversy over one. If one should become apparent in the future, Mr. Morgan
may address it at that time.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of October 2017.
_____________________________
Mary Miles Teachout,
Superior Judge