Coolidge v. Clark ( 2020 )

Coolidge v. Clark, No. 284-5-19 Wncv (Tomasi, J., Feb. 13, 2020).
[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. 284-5-19 Wncv
Jeffery P Coolidge,
Plaintiff
v.
Catherine Clark,
Defendant
Opinion and Order on Motion to Reconsider
Plaintiff has filed a “letter” with the Court. It is unclear its intent. To the
extent it could be construed as a motion to reconsider this Court’s dismissal Order,
it is denied. Plaintiff now appears to be arguing, in contrast to his actual
Complaint, that he is seeking review of his expungement determination, as opposed
to his substantiation determination. For a number of reasons, that contention does
not convince the Court to reconsider its ruling.
First, the Complaint plainly asks the Court for an order concerning the
“substantiation determination.” Complaint at 3. It seeks no relief in connection
with expungement.
Second, even if Plaintiff had challenged the expungement determination, the
Complaint would be subject to dismissal. Vt. R. Civ. P. 75 is available, under
certain circumstances, to review governmental decisions. One requirement for such
review is that a plaintiff must have first gone through or “exhausted” all of the
possible administrative remedies available to him or her. “A party's failure to
exhaust administrative remedies permits a court to dismiss the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.” Jordan v. State Agency of Transp., 166 Vt. 509, 511,
702 A.2d 58, 60 (1997). In this instance, at the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he
had available to him and was still seeking review of his expungement determination
before the Human Services Board. Until that process was completed, this Court
would not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Id.Finally, Plaintiff may not “cure” that lack of jurisdiction by subsequently
completing his administrative remedies. The administrative process is designed “to
afford the parties and the courts the benefit of the administrative agency’s
experience and expertise, and to afford the agency the opportunity to cure its own
errors.” Pratt v. Pallito, 2017 VT 22, ¶ 14, 204 Vt. 313, 318–19 (internal quotations
omitted). In a similar vein, courts also require that all issues sought to be raised in
court were raised and adequately preserved before the administrative body. Id.Plaintiff simply may not circumvent an available administrative process by filing
suit before he has exhausted his administrative remedies and preserved before the
administrative body the issues he wishes to raise in the court proceeding.
Indeed, in other analogous contexts, courts have rejected the notion that a
party may file judicial lawsuit, complete the administrative process, and then
proceed with the litigation. See Oriakhi v. United States, 165 F. App’x 991, 993 (3d
Cir. 2006) (“there appears to be unanimous circuit court consensus that a prisoner
may not fulfill the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement by exhausting administrative
remedies after the filing of the complaint in federal court”). As the District Court
for the District of New Jersey has stated:
Because exhaustion of administrative remedies is not just a
requirement but a pre-requisite to suit, the relevant time for
measuring exhaustion is the date of filing the complaint. In McNeil v.
United States, for example, the Court upheld the dismissal of a pro se
plaintiff’s claim under the FTCA where the plaintiff had filed a claim
for administrative relief, but only after filing suit. 508 U.S. 106, 111–
12 (1993). Nor, in such a case, can jurisdiction be restored by
subsequent administrative action and the filing of a post-exhaustion
amended complaint. Hoffenberg v. Provost, 154 F. App’x 307, 310 (3d
Cir. 2005).
Torres v. United States, No. CV 19-16395, 2019 WL 7343494, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 31,
2019).
The United States Supreme Court has explained the policy reasons for such a
conclusion. In McNeil, the Court pointed out that premature filing of judicial cases
in advance of exhaustion of administrative remedies places an unwarranted burden
on the judicial system and on the defendants who must defend against such claims.
McNeil, 508 U.S. at 112. While the impact in any one case may be small, across
many actions, the effect would be weightier. Id.WHEREFORE, because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not seek relief concerning
the expungement determination and because this Court would lack jurisdiction if it
had raised such a claim, the motion to reconsider is denied.
The Court does, however, appreciate the efforts Plaintiff has made to address
the issues that led to his inclusion on the Registry. The Court encourages him to
continue his best efforts in that regard.
2
Electronically signed on February 13, 2020 at 03:09 PM pursuant
to V.R.E.F. 7(d).
________________________
Timothy B. Tomasi
Superior Court Judge
3