Coombs V. Maine Dep't of Corrections

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STArE OF MAll\L CCMl3ERLA'\D, ss SCPEJUOR COURT CJ VlL ACTJO:-J TlOCKFT NO. AP-14-42 c:.=~~J~~~ PATRICK COOMBS, g,:~ IVw-WWJ-GI-<~- ?OJ~ zz 1!'-,_-, Petnwner, ORDER MAINE OEPARJ'MEXr OF CORREC rJOl\'S. ct al, Petitionn Patnck Coomb' has brought an action under Rule ROC and 5 M.RS. § II 001 et seq. to review an a~tion by the Oepanmelll of Corrections D~>ciplinary Hoard The petition for review is broLight against rcspondclll' Department of Corrcctwns, Warden ScoU Landry, and Captain Shavm Welsh. Before the coUJt is !he motion by respondents to disJlll>s Coombs's petition as unl!mely. !\Iaine ·s Admim,trative Procedure Act and the Maine Rules of Cn·i] Procedure govern commencement of an action for judicial review under the Maine -~LR.S. ~ Administrativ~ ProccdLire Act. 5 11 002(3). 'l he _,tatutc imposes a thirty-day time limit to file a petit1011 for IC\'iew of a final agency action_/d_ Under RLIIe 5(c), liling M.R Civ. P 5(c) 1 r~quires actual receipt by the clerk of the court. The 30-day tim~ limit is jumdictional and "must be applied llllifom1ly ~nd 1 Whik M.R Civ.P. 5(b) pro\'l<ks that 'ervice ;., ~ompklc upon maihng, there i> no comparable provi;wn that fding has bc~n accmnplished once a pleading has been mailed to the clerk's office_ Instead the dale of filing has consistently been interpreted as tho date of receipt by the clerk. See, e.g, Cooper v_ City of A>hlmrd, 871 F.2J 104 (9th Cir. 1989);p JA C 1-iarvey, Maine Civil Practic~ App § A2:R at 37 ("Depo<it:ng a notice m the mail within [the dcadlmel is not ,u(licietll, if the de1k do~' not rcoei~e J\ by the dc~dline''). conoisLently to panies r~prcoentcd hy <.'OUusd and self-r~presentcd panies alik~-" Fuurnia v Dcpwtment of (orrectwns_, '200Y l\11' 112 ~~ 2, 983 A.2d 40 L Coomb<' <tffidavit >Wtes b~ received notice ofth~ decision through the mtenml pnson mJil syskm on July II, 2014. (Petitioner's "P,.IJidavit of Facts'- attached to Petition for Review~ 9.) Jlc therefore had '-0 days from July II, not mduding that day, to tile the pct1tion v.·ith the clerk of courl. MR. Civ. P ti(aj. fh~ 30-day pcnod would ha\e exptrcd August 10, but bec~usc this fell on a Sunday, the rule adds an cxtm day. ld The last possible day Coombs could have timely filed was August 11,2014. Coombs's pcl!tion was r~eei\·ed on August 12, 2014, one day after the 30-day filing tCtj uirement under the .\dm inistrati\ e Procedure Act. 5 M_R.S. § ll 002(3). '] his 1S demonstrated by the date stamped on his petition and hy !he docket sheet, wh1ch sho\VS the petition for review a> "received 8-12-14. "' Coomh' cites the rule ollo\ving lhree extra days after ~~rvicc hy mail, M.R.Civ.P. 6(c), but that rule does not allow an extension of statutory lllmg deadlines. Coomb.< also argues, contrary to the ,\ugust 12 date shown in the file. that his petition for review was timely received, pointing Loa ccrtilied mail rcce1pt dated August 11, 2014.' The Department correctly responds that the receipt >hows the date of mailing rather than rece1pl by the clerk of court us reqmred for flling under the rules_ M.R. Ci, P. 5(cj. 1hc l"ederal courts have adopted a "mailbox rule"' for prisoners in certain circum,tances, treating notices of appeal a,< timely filed if they al'e deposited in the prison mailing system in a 'Coombs's petition wa< accompanied b)' an appllcation for leave lo proceed without payment of feco, wh1cfo ""'not :tcled upon .,mil Auguol 18_ so his petttion was not adually accepted for filing unnl that date. for purposes of the appeal deadline in 5 M.R S § 11002(3), !he court v.illmterprct !he date of filing as the date his petition wa> fir>! rece1vcd by tt·.e clerk. ; It appears that the certitied mail receipt re:ate:; !u service of the pctilion on the respondent> rather than mailing to the clerk, but Coombs argue' that all mailings were accomplished on the same date. 2 llmci1 I;JS!li,m_ See Houswn ,, Lock, 488 lT.'i 2M (:988), cited inl'a.ISO'I ,, !Jeparlmel!/ of' l!wnan Sc·rvice1, 2001 ML 124 11~1 I\, 21, 775 A 2d 363_ Tlow~ver, the Maine law Court has never adopted that rule. The entry shall he: The petition for review is dismis.<ed. The clerk;, directed to mcorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a). Dated: January '2-'--; 2015 ~A=rhomas D_ Warren Ju8ticc, Superior Court 3 CLERK OF COURTS Cumbf}rland County 20o Newbury Street. GrouncJ F:"or Portland. lviE 04 :01 JAMES fORTI!\' AAG OF?IG<: Ol' <HE ATIOIG.;O:Y GH:ERAL ii ~TAT<;: HOl'~E STA~~O:.; ACGUSTA ME 04333-0006 1e"f""Jen1 CLERK OF COURTS 20.~ C~rnberland Courty \Jov.·bury Slrue;, Gmu: 1d Floor Portl~no, ME 041 01 PATRICK COO.':HS MAIK;o CO!Ll{EGT; O:'<AL C'i:NTI'R 17 MALL:SON l'ALL3 RO'Ul '~o'fNDHA.'O ME 04062 ~-l,+'orler 'o ,_, 0 "'' l ~"''7·

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.