Salerno v. ADOC/Ryan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/09/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ) CHARLES RYAN, ) ) Defendants/Appellees. ) ___________________________________) 1 CA-CV 10-0591 DEPARTMENT B Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2010-000301-001 DT D E C I S I O N O R D E R The court, Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judges Daniel A. Barker and Patricia K. Norris, Salerno, an inmate participating, has considered this appeal. Fox Department of Joseph Corrections ( ADOC ), filed with an the Arizona Administrative Review Act Complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court. cited the Revised Arizona Statutes Administrative ( A.R.S. ) Review sections Act 12-901 basis for the superior court s jurisdiction. He ( ARA ), Arizona to as -914, the In his complaint, Salerno requested a review of ADOC s findings in a disciplinary investigation that disciplinary ticket. resulted in Salerno being issued a The superior court granted ADOC s motion to dismiss Salerno s complaint. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Administrative Review Act to review a Salerno v. ADOC 1 CA-CV 10-0591 decision of the Arizona Department of Corrections finding Defendant guilty of a disciplinary violation. Arizona law clearly establishes that the ARA does not allow for judicial review of inmate disciplinary decisions by the ADOC. Rose v. Ariz. Dep t of Corr., 167 Ariz. 116, 119-20, 804 P.2d 845, 848-49 (App. 1991). correctly dismissed Salerno s Thus, the superior court complaint on jurisdictional grounds. We also deny Salerno s request to remand this matter to the superior court for it to consider his complaint as a special action petition. Although the superior court did not expressly address this issue, we find no abuse of discretion in failing to convert the complaint into a special action. jurisdiction is highly discretionary. Such State ex rel Thomas v. Duncan, 216 Ariz. 260, 262, ¶ 4, 165 P.3d 238, 240 (App. 2007). Here, Salerno failed appeal process. to exhaust ADOC s internal disciplinary Additionally, if there is a basis for Salerno s claims (a decision we do not make), they may be asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED affirming the judgment of the superior court. ______________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge 2
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.
