Squiers v. Deml ( 2024 )

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 04/16 g4
Washmgton mt
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT £1 CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 22-CV-01552
65 State Street
f1
Montpelier VT 05602
802—828—2091
wwwvermontjudiciaryorg
Michael Squiers V Nicholas Dernl et a1
O nion and Order on Mr. S ujers’ Motion for Partial Summa ud ent
Incarcerated Plaintiff Michael Squiers alleges that he was injured on work crew
while mowing: he slipped, and the mower’s blade cut his foot. Throughout the
administrative grievance process, he sought monetary compensation for the injury and
complained that incarcerated workers should be given proper safety gear and training.
The grievance ultimately was denied at the Commissioner level because he asserted that
it had not been initiated in a timely manner under the Offender Grievance System. Mr.
Squiers then initiated this case pro se. The original complaint includes the two claims
that appear in the grievance process as described above.
Subsequently, Vermont’s Prisoner’s Rights Office entered an appearance for Mr.
Squiers but only as to claims for declaratory and prospective relief (an injunction or writ
of mandamus). Counsel then filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint
includes no cause of action for retrospective relief (compensatory damages). In the
amended complaint, Mr. Squiers seeks declarations to the effect that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) has failed to comply with mandatory statutory duties to “establish
written guidelines governing the hours and conditions of offender work” under 28 V.S.A.
§ 751b(c), and to “promulgate rules establishing an injured offender compensation
program for offenders or their dependents for injuries suffered while under supervision
Order Page 1 of 4
22—CV-01552 Michael Squiers v Nicholas Deml et al
by the Department and arising out of and in the course of work, industry, or an
employment program,” 28 V.S.A. § 760(a).
Mr. Squiers has filed a motion for partial summary judgment addressing solely the
substance of his declaratory and prospective claims. As discussed at the April 15
hearing, this case has not been bifurcated technically. Nonetheless, the parties and the
Court have allowed the presence of two complaints: the original one seeking damages for
which Mr. Squiers represents himself; the amended one seeking declaratory and
prospective relief for which he is represented by counsel.
The State has generally raised the matters of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and issue preservation. Mr. Squiers has generally asserted that he exhausted
his administrative remedies by completing the grievance process. At the hearing, he
argued that he preserved the claim for declaratory and mandamus relief, pointing in
particular to the administrative response appearing on Grievance Form #6 (Response to
Appeal to Corrections Executive). At that point in the process, the DOC treated the
grievance as meritorious in part (although to what end is unclear). That response
includes this: “With regard to your request to receive appropriate safety equipment when
performing facility employment details at NSCF, VT DOC facilities are required to
ensure incarcerated individuals working conditions comply with all applicable federal,
state, or local work safety law and regulations. It does not appear this happened in the
situation you described. Your complaint is sustained in this regard.” The Commissioner,
Order Page 2 of 4
22-CV-01552 Michael Squiers v Nicholas Deml et al
however, subsequently denied the grievance because Mr. Squiers had not initiated it
within the mandatory timeframe.1
The Vermont Supreme Court has made clear that the Civil Division lacks
authority to hear cases arising out of administrative action or inaction if the plaintiff has
failed either to exhaust available administrative remedies or to preserve the specific
issue presented. See Pratt v. Pallito, 2017 VT 22, ¶ 16, 204 Vt. 313, 319 (Preservation
“affects a court’s authority to hear and decide an issue; we have consistently held that we
will not address issues that were not properly preserved before the relevant
administrative agency.”). “[T]o properly preserve an issue, a party must present the
issue to the administrative agency ‘with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives
the [agency] a fair opportunity to rule on it.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Exhaustion aside, nowhere in the grievance process does the Court see requests to
adopt “written guidelines governing the hours and conditions of offender work” and to
initiate rulemaking to establish “an injured offender compensation program,” much less
citations to 28 V.S.A. §§ 751b(c), 760(a). Though the DOC at the Corrections Executive
level acknowledged its general duty to “comply with all applicable federal, state, or local
work safety law and regulations,” nowhere did it specifically address the statutes at issue
here or whether it was or was not in compliance with them.2 And those issues were not
1 The Commissioner’s determination implies that while Mr. Squiers may have completed
the grievance process, he may not have properly exhausted administrative remedies. See
Mullinnex v. Menard, 2020 VT 33, ¶ 15, 212 Vt. 432, 442–43 (exhaustion of DOC
grievance policy requires compliance with its terms). Because the Court resolves the
motion on preservation grounds, it is unnecessary to resolve the exhaustion question
now.
2 The Court notes that, throughout the briefing on Mr. Squiers’ motion, the State has
never taken the position that it has complied with what, at first blush, appear to be
Order Page 3 of 4
22-CV-01552 Michael Squiers v Nicholas Deml et al
raised by Mr. Squires as deficiencies. Simply put: Mr. Squiers did not give the DOC
notice of the issues presented in the amended complaint with sufficient clarity and
specificity to give the DOC a fair opportunity to consider them; respond to them; and,
perhaps, take steps to address them prior to seeking judicial relief. Accordingly, he failed
to preserve these issues, and the Court lacks authority to hear them.
On that basis, summary judgment is denied to Mr. Squiers as to those claims, and
the amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Squiers’ claim for monetary
relief remains. He has indicated that he wishes to obtain private counsel and file an
amended complaint. The Court grants those requests.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Squiers’ motion for partial summary judgment is
denied, and the amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A notice of
appearance by counsel or by Plaintiff indicating that he will represent himself, and an
amended complaint shall be filed within 60 days.
Electronically signed on Monday, April 15, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).
_______________________
Timothy B. Tomasi
Superior Court Judge
mandatory duties under 28 V.S.A. §§ 751b(c), 760 or (somehow) that those statutes do
not impose mandatory duties on the DOC that have yet to be fulfilled.
Order Page 4 of 4
22-CV-01552 Michael Squiers v Nicholas Deml et al