Zachary Rose v. Michael Touchette, Commissioner, Department of Corrections

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court considered whether the Department of Corrections’ termination of Zachary Rose from a treatment program constituted punishment under 28 V.S.A. § 851, thereby requiring a statutory hearing and due process protections. The Court held that Rose’s challenge to DOC’s failure to provide a hearing was reviewable under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 and that the Bell v. Wolfish framework governs whether the termination was punishment. Because genuine factual disputes remained regarding punitive intent and the relationship between the termination and legitimate security objectives, the Court reversed summary judgment and remanded.

Holdings

1. A Rule 75 claim is reviewable when an inmate alleges that DOC failed to perform the clear legal duty imposed by 28 V.S.A. §§ 851-852 to provide a hearing before imposing punishment. Because Rose presented a colorable claim that his termination may have been punitive, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the claim.
2. The proper framework for determining whether DOC action constitutes punishment under § 851 is the three-factor test adopted from Bell v. Wolfish: whether officials intended to punish, whether the action serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and whether the action is excessive in relation to that purpose. An alleged punishment need not independently violate constitutional due-process rights for §§ 851-853 to apply.
3. Program termination is not necessarily punishment, but it may constitute punishment depending on the circumstances. The record contained unresolved factual issues concerning DOC’s intent, the relationship between Rose’s escape comment and the security designation, the compatibility of his minimum-custody classification with the asserted security risk, and the one-year review period. Accordingly, neither party was entitled to summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rose’s challenge to DOC’s failure to provide a statutory disciplinary hearing before terminating him from programming was reviewable under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75.
2. Whether the Bell v. Wolfish framework, rather than the constitutional due-process prerequisites discussed in Conway v. Cumming, governs whether an action constitutes punishment under 28 V.S.A. § 851.
3. Whether the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that Rose’s termination from treatment programming was or was not punishment under § 851.
4. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded