morgan v. menard ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • ee tl 27 ae
    fi wit vite Y
    STATE OF VERMONT
    SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
    Washington Unit maoct 21: Fw Docket No. 352-6-17 Wnev
    MATTHEW J. MORGAN
    Plaintiff
    poe } 3 © ‘
    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 itisexpunged.
    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.
    nts
    Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 2 day of October 2017.
    Mary Miles Teachout,
    Superior Judge
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 2/29/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/29/2024