Reed v. Ryan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE KENNETH WAYNE REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CAROL SCOTT; BERTH FRANCO-WILLIS; and OBIE GOINS, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-04-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CV 09-0407 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. LC 2009-000102-001 DT The Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge AFFIRMED Kenneth Wayne Reed, Appellant In Propria Persona San Luis Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Michael E. Gottfried, Assistant Attorney General Liability Management System Attorneys for Appellees Phoenix W E I S B E R G, Judge ¶1 dismissing Kenneth Reed appeals from an order of the trial court his special follow, we affirm. action complaint. For reasons that PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Reed is an inmate incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 31-221(D)(2002), requests to in prison May and June authorities in 2008, the Reed Arizona made written Department of Corrections ("ADOC") to view his automated summary record file ("file"). An "automated summary record file" means a computer printout or generated image that includes the prisoner's: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sentencing and release date calculations. Institutional movements. Disciplinary and rule violations. Detainers and warrants. Institutional work or job history Classification actions. Board of executive clemency hearing actions. A.R.S. § 31-221(G). With one exception not applicable here, "[a] prisoner shall not make a request to view a copy of the prisoner's own automated summary record file more than one time each year." ¶3 A.R.S. § 31-221(F). ADOC has formulated procedures in Department Order 901.08, § 1.6 for an inmate's yearly review of his file. These include requiring the correctional officer to print a copy of the file, provide it to the inmate in person and destroy the printed copy after the inmate has reviewed it. 1 1 The parties sometimes refer to the AIMS file, which is an acronym for Adult Information Management System, the computerized portion of the Master Record File maintained by ADOC for each inmate. 2 ¶4 After Reed was allowed to review his file in July 2008, Reed filed an inmate grievance appeal in August 2008. He complained that he was only allowed thirty minutes to review the file, that it contained codes that he could not understand, and that certain information allegedly had been withheld from the file. ADOC did not resolve the grievance to his satisfaction, and Reed filed a special action complaint against the director of ADOC and several ADOC employees ("Defendants"). ¶5 Reed alleged that when ADOC finally allowed him to review his information special file, it listed codes did in not A.R.S. and contain § all the 31-221(G), abbreviations categories that rendering it of contained the data incomprehensible, and that his prison counselor would not assist him in deciphering the codes. He also alleged that thirty minutes was not sufficient time to review his file, that he was not permitted to obtain a copy of the file printout, even though he offered to pay for it, printout, it was destroyed. and that after he reviewed the He claimed this violated his right to view his file under A.R.S. § 31-221(D). Defendants filed a response and motion to dismiss the complaint for special action. They argued that ADOC had complied with A.R.S. § 31-221 and asked the court to decline jurisdiction and/or to dismiss the complaint. 3 ¶6 The relief and trial court dismissed accepted the jurisdiction, complaint. The but court denied ruled that nothing in A.R.S. § 31-221 authorized a specific amount of time for an inmate to review a file, required ADOC employees to assist an inmate in understanding entries made in it, or allowed the inmate to copy its contents. ADOC's administrative The court also noted that procedures required file after the inmate reviewed it. destruction of the Finally, as to Reed's claim that information was missing from the file, the court observed that Reed had not identified which categories of information were allegedly missing and that it was "not up to this Court to make assumptions to complete the record." there was nothing in the record to The court concluded suggest that ADOC acted arbitrarily, capriciously or abused its discretion and that the way in which ADOC had handled Reed s request to review his file was reasonable. ¶7 Reed timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), B)(2003). DISCUSSION ¶8 On appeal, Reed reiterates the arguments he made in his special action complaint. He adds, however, that nothing in A.R.S. § 31-221 authorizes ADOC to limit the time for viewing a file to thirty minutes. He also claims that his request for a printed copy of the file at his expense was a request for access 4 to a public record and that A.R.S. § 31-221(C) requires ADOC to honor that request. See A.R.S. §§ 39-121 (2001) and 39- 121.01(D)(1) (Supp. 2009)(dealing with inspection and copying of public records). Finally, he contends that in the absence of controverting evidence, the trial court was required to accept as true the assertion that his file did not contain all of the enumerated categories of information. abused its discretion in denying He claims the trial court his request for relief. Standard of Review ¶9 A special action is appropriate on the question of whether Defendants failed to exercise discretion which they have a duty to exercise or perform a duty required by law or whether Defendants made a determination capricious or an abuse of discretion. (c). that was arbitrary and Ariz. R. Spec. Act. 3(a), "The denial of special action relief is a discretionary decision for the superior court which will be upheld for any valid reason disclosed by the record." State ex rel. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 143 Ariz. 341, 345, 693 P.2d 996, 1000 (App. 1985). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the decision of the administrative agency and will "affirm the decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion." Weller v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 176 Ariz. 220, 224, 860 P.2d 487, 491 (App. 1993). the superior court's ruling upholding 5 an In reviewing administrative decision, "we independently examine the record whether the evidence supports the judgment." to determine Webb v. State ex rel. Ariz. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 202 Ariz. 555, 557, ¶ 7, 48 P.3d 505, 507 (App. 2002). "Neither this court nor the superior court may substitute its judgment for that of the agency on factual questions or matters of agency expertise [but] we apply our independent judgment, however, to questions of including questions of statutory interpretation . . . ." (citations omitted). 562, 564, special ¶ 9, action 20 law, Id. See also Kimble v. City of Page, 199 Ariz. P.3d decision, 605, 607 "This (App. court may 2001) draw (in its reviewing own legal conclusions and is not bound by those of the trial court."). Interpretation of A.R.S. § 31-221 ¶10 The goal of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Centric-Jones v. Town of Marana, 188 Ariz. 464, 468, 937 P.2d 654, 658 (App. 1996). To determine legislative intent, we first look to the words of the statute and if their meaning is clear, we accord the statute its plain meaning. Id. We consider individual provisions in the context of the entire statute. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm n, 198 Ariz. 604, 607, ¶ 15, 12 P.3d 1208, 1211 (App. 2000). make additions unnecessary. to a statute that Also, the court may not the legislature deemed White v. State, 144 Ariz. 39, 42, 695 P.2d 288, 6 291 (App. 1985); Padilla v. Indus. Comm n, 113 Ariz. 104, 106, 546 P.2d 1135, 1137 (1976)(court cannot enlarge the meaning of words or rewrite a statute that is clear and unambiguous even if its interpretation is harsh or uncompassionate). a statute weight is to silent an or ambiguous, administrative we agency s will Finally, when give considerable construction of statutory scheme which it is entrusted to administer. the State v. Turner, 175 Ariz. 256, 259, 855 P.2d 442, 445 (App. 1993). ¶11 Here, unambiguous. the An language inmate of is the entitled statute to is review clear and his file containing the seven specified categories once a year. A.R.S. § 31-221 requires (D), Defendants (F), to (G). assist Nothing the abbreviations in the file. in the statute inmate in deciphering codes or Neither does it require ADOC to permit the inmate to review his file for an indefinite period of time. As explained in an inmate response letter from an ADOC employee to Reed dated September 25, 2008, [a]s we discussed at our meeting, we have limited staff resources . . . and we cannot permit any one inmate to dominate [the correctional officer s] time sacrificing other legitimate inmate services/needs. The correctional officer followed policy and 30 minutes should have been more than adequate to review your file in accordance with the policy. 7 ¶12 As to Reed s request to photocopy statute does not afford him such right. his file, the This prohibition is consistent with Department Order 901.08, § 1.6.6.4 authorizing destruction of the computerized printout after the inmate has reviewed the file. We reject Reed s contention that he was entitled to photocopy his file under the Arizona public records statutes, A.R.S. §§ 39-121 and 39-121.01. Section 31-221(C) specifies and that records of prisoner care subject to the public records statutes. the categories himself. of Read information together, are Subsection G enumerates available these custody only sections to the reflect inmate that the legislature did not intend that information listed in subsection G was subject to public disclosure; only information regarding the care and custody of the prisoner as set forth in subsection C. See also Department Order 901.08, § 1.3 (listing eight specific items constituting public record information). ¶13 Finally, we agree with the trial court s conclusion that Reed has failed to establish which, if any, categories of information under A.R.S. § 31-221(G) were allegedly missing from his file. Reed has not shown that ADOC acted arbitrarily or capriciously in determining the method by which he was permitted to view his file. Further, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support ADOC s procedures and policies implementing A.R.S. § 31-221. 8 CONCLUSION ¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court dismissing Reed s special action complaint. /s/__________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/_________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge /s/_________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.