Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — State Agency Administrative Directive As Appearing on Agency Website

Chambers v. Johnpierre, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135140 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2016):

An inmate at a Connecticut Department of Correction facility who wishes to file a grievance must follow the procedure established in Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative Directive 9.6 ("Directive"). See Administrative Directive 9.6, ECF No. 22-2 (Ex. A), Conn. Dep't of Corr. Admin. Directive 9.6, effective August 15, 2013).4 Under the Directive, full administrative review generally occurs in three steps. First, an inmate must seek to resolve his or her complaint informally by depositing an Inmate Request Form (CN 9601) in a designated collection box. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to his or her Inmate Request Form or does not receive a response within fifteen days, the inmate may proceed to the second step, which is termed "Level One Review." To initiate Level One Review, an inmate completes the Inmate Administrative Remedy Form (CN 9602). At this point, the inmate is required to provide evidence that he or she attempted to informally resolve his or her grievance by attaching the Inmate Request [*8]  Form (CN 9601) to CN 9602. Id. at 9.6(6)(C). The inmate also has the option of submitting CN 9602 without attaching CN 9601 and providing a "valid reason" why he or she could not obtain the form. Id. In the Administrative Directive, the Department of Correction indicates that not receiving a "timely response" to an inmate request would be a "valid reason" for not attaching the CN 9601 form. Id. Level One Review is undertaken by the Unit Administrator, who must respond to the grievance in writing within thirty days. Id. at 8. An inmate may proceed to the third step, Level Two Review, if he or she disagrees with the Unit Administrator's judgment or does not receive a timely response. Id. Generally, Level Two Review takes place before a District Administrator and is the final stage of appeal. Level Three appeals are restricted to challenges to department policy or the integrity of the grievance procedure, or to appeals of Level Two grievances to which the District Administrator has failed to respond in a timely manner. See id. at 9.6(6)(L).

4   The Court notes that page five of Administrative Directive 9.6 is missing from the copy of the directive submitted by defendants in support of their motion [*9]  for summary judgment. The court takes judicial notice of page five of Administrative Directive 9.6 which appears on the Department of Correction's website. See www.ct.gov/doc/LIB/doc/PDF/AD/ad0906.pdf. The Court can take judicial notice of the State of Connecticut Administrative Directives on the Department of Correction's website. See Nicholson v. Murphy, No. 3:02-cv-1815 (MRK), 2003 WL 22909876, at *7, n.2 (D. Conn. Sept. 19, 2003) (citation omitted) (taking judicial notice of the Administrative Directives as "written guidelines, promulgated pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 18-81, that establish the parameters of operation for Connecticut correctional facilities."). See also Boarding Sch. Review, LLC v. Delta Career Educ. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 8921(DAB), 2013 WL 6670584, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013) (citations omitted) ("The Court generally has the discretion to take judicial notice of [I]nternet material").

Share this article:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email

Recent Posts

Archives