NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-498
BODHISATTVA SKANDHA
vs.
KENNETH LIZOTTE & others.1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Bodhisattva Skandha, is currently
incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at
Norfolk (MCI-Norfolk). He appeals from a judgment dismissing
his complaint against the defendants: Kenneth Lizotte, the
prison superintendent; Tracy L. Westman, a corrections officer
assigned as the grievance coordinator; and two unnamed "informal
complaint coordinators."2 The complaint alleges the defendants
(1) were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's request for
heat in his cell, (2) fraudulently denied that his cell was too
1 Tracy L. Westman, Jane Doe, and John Doe.
2The defendants did not file a brief or otherwise participate in this appeal. cold, and (3) conspired to fraudulently deny that his cell was
too cold. We affirm.
Background. On September 25, 2024, the plaintiff notified
the defendants that there had been no heat in his cell for ten
days. On September 27, 2024, the informal complaint coordinator
for MCI-Norfolk indicated that heating season for the facility
began on September 30.
On October 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an "Inmate
Grievance Form" (grievance) based on the inadequate heat
including a request for "[d]eclaratory, [i]njunctive,
[c]ompensatory, and (huge) punitive relief in Superior Court."
In support of his grievance, the plaintiff noted that he has
arthritis, is sedentary, and expressed that he is frequently
cold -- causing him to shiver and have trouble sleeping at
night. The grievance coordinator denied the plaintiff's
grievance. The decision stated, "Please be advised that in
accordance with the NOR 740 the heating season is considered
approximately from October 15th to April 15th, as the average
temperatures remain within the standard recommended heating
temperature of 68 degrees between 7am and 11pm and 64 degrees
between 11:01pm and 6:59am." The plaintiff appealed the denial
of his grievance.
2 On February 7, 2025, the superintendent denied the
plaintiff's appeal and request for relief stating that he
concurred with the grievance coordinator's reasoning for denying
the grievance.
On March 24, 2025, the plaintiff filed this complaint in
the Superior Court. On March 28, 2025, a Superior Court judge
reviewed the complaint and dismissed it, concluding that it was
"frivolous and without merit."3 The plaintiff appealed.
Discussion. As best we can discern, the "Causes of Action"
section of the complaint can be distilled to two claims. First,
the plaintiff alleges that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical need by denying his request
to turn on the heat in his cell in violation of art. 26 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
Second, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
individually committed fraud by denying his grievance and
appeal. He also claims that the defendants conspired to
fraudulently deny his requests for heat.
1. Standard of review. We review the dismissal of a civil
complaint de novo. See Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458
3 The judge reviewed the complaint and dismissed it sua sponte. The defendants did not file a motion to dismiss.
3 Mass. 674, 676 (2011). "For purposes of that review, we accept
as true the facts alleged in the [plaintiff's] complaint[] and
any exhibits attached thereto, drawing all reasonable inferences
in the [plaintiff's] favor." Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming
Comm'n, 476 Mass. 591, 595 (2017).
Although a complaint need not include detailed factual
allegations to survive dismissal, it must provide some grounds
from which to conclude the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008). "[T]o
raise a right to relief above the speculative level[,]"
allegations in the complaint must amount to more than mere
"labels and conclusions." Id.
2. Deliberate indifference claim. To state a viable
Eighth Amendment or art. 26 claim the plaintiff must allege
facts plausibly suggesting that "(1) a prison's conditions of
confinement present a substantial risk of serious harm; and
(2) prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to
inmate health or safety" (quotations omitted). Torres v.
Commissioner of Correction, 427 Mass. 611, 613-614 (1998).
"The Constitution . . . does not mandate comfortable
prisons, and only those deprivations denying the minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave
to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation" (quotations
4 and citations omitted). Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298
(1991). "[W]hether prison conditions are sufficiently harmful
to establish an Eighth Amendment violation[] is a purely legal
determination for the court to make." Torres, 427 Mass. at 614.
The complaint alleges that the lack of heat in the
plaintiff's cell for ten days in September 2024 caused him to
experience shivering, pain due to his arthritis, and trouble
sleeping. These allegations, if true, are insufficient to
plausibly suggest that the defendants failed to meet "the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" (citation
omitted). Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. Accordingly, the plaintiff
failed to allege facts creating "a substantial risk of serious
harm" and, therefore, has not established a viable Eighth
Amendment or art. 26 claim. Torres, 427 Mass. at 613-614.
Further, the plaintiff failed to allege facts that would
demonstrate that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference. "[T]he showing of deliberate indifference
necessary to satisfy the subjective element of a claim of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement involves a
demonstration that prison officials had a culpable state of
mind" (quotation and citation omitted). Foster v. Commissioner
of Correction, 488 Mass. 643, 652 (2021). The required culpable
state of mind must rise to the level of "conscious[] disregar[d]
5 [of] a substantial risk of serious harm" (citations omitted).
Id. at 653.
As noted, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff notified
the defendants that the lack of heat in his cell for ten days in
September of 2024 had caused him to experience shivering, pain
due to his arthritis, and trouble sleeping. Because these
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-498
BODHISATTVA SKANDHA
vs.
KENNETH LIZOTTE & others.1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Bodhisattva Skandha, is currently
incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at
Norfolk (MCI-Norfolk). He appeals from a judgment dismissing
his complaint against the defendants: Kenneth Lizotte, the
prison superintendent; Tracy L. Westman, a corrections officer
assigned as the grievance coordinator; and two unnamed "informal
complaint coordinators."2 The complaint alleges the defendants
(1) were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's request for
heat in his cell, (2) fraudulently denied that his cell was too
1 Tracy L. Westman, Jane Doe, and John Doe.
2The defendants did not file a brief or otherwise participate in this appeal. cold, and (3) conspired to fraudulently deny that his cell was
too cold. We affirm.
Background. On September 25, 2024, the plaintiff notified
the defendants that there had been no heat in his cell for ten
days. On September 27, 2024, the informal complaint coordinator
for MCI-Norfolk indicated that heating season for the facility
began on September 30.
On October 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an "Inmate
Grievance Form" (grievance) based on the inadequate heat
including a request for "[d]eclaratory, [i]njunctive,
[c]ompensatory, and (huge) punitive relief in Superior Court."
In support of his grievance, the plaintiff noted that he has
arthritis, is sedentary, and expressed that he is frequently
cold -- causing him to shiver and have trouble sleeping at
night. The grievance coordinator denied the plaintiff's
grievance. The decision stated, "Please be advised that in
accordance with the NOR 740 the heating season is considered
approximately from October 15th to April 15th, as the average
temperatures remain within the standard recommended heating
temperature of 68 degrees between 7am and 11pm and 64 degrees
between 11:01pm and 6:59am." The plaintiff appealed the denial
of his grievance.
2 On February 7, 2025, the superintendent denied the
plaintiff's appeal and request for relief stating that he
concurred with the grievance coordinator's reasoning for denying
the grievance.
On March 24, 2025, the plaintiff filed this complaint in
the Superior Court. On March 28, 2025, a Superior Court judge
reviewed the complaint and dismissed it, concluding that it was
"frivolous and without merit."3 The plaintiff appealed.
Discussion. As best we can discern, the "Causes of Action"
section of the complaint can be distilled to two claims. First,
the plaintiff alleges that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical need by denying his request
to turn on the heat in his cell in violation of art. 26 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
Second, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
individually committed fraud by denying his grievance and
appeal. He also claims that the defendants conspired to
fraudulently deny his requests for heat.
1. Standard of review. We review the dismissal of a civil
complaint de novo. See Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458
3 The judge reviewed the complaint and dismissed it sua sponte. The defendants did not file a motion to dismiss.
3 Mass. 674, 676 (2011). "For purposes of that review, we accept
as true the facts alleged in the [plaintiff's] complaint[] and
any exhibits attached thereto, drawing all reasonable inferences
in the [plaintiff's] favor." Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming
Comm'n, 476 Mass. 591, 595 (2017).
Although a complaint need not include detailed factual
allegations to survive dismissal, it must provide some grounds
from which to conclude the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008). "[T]o
raise a right to relief above the speculative level[,]"
allegations in the complaint must amount to more than mere
"labels and conclusions." Id.
2. Deliberate indifference claim. To state a viable
Eighth Amendment or art. 26 claim the plaintiff must allege
facts plausibly suggesting that "(1) a prison's conditions of
confinement present a substantial risk of serious harm; and
(2) prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to
inmate health or safety" (quotations omitted). Torres v.
Commissioner of Correction, 427 Mass. 611, 613-614 (1998).
"The Constitution . . . does not mandate comfortable
prisons, and only those deprivations denying the minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave
to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation" (quotations
4 and citations omitted). Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298
(1991). "[W]hether prison conditions are sufficiently harmful
to establish an Eighth Amendment violation[] is a purely legal
determination for the court to make." Torres, 427 Mass. at 614.
The complaint alleges that the lack of heat in the
plaintiff's cell for ten days in September 2024 caused him to
experience shivering, pain due to his arthritis, and trouble
sleeping. These allegations, if true, are insufficient to
plausibly suggest that the defendants failed to meet "the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" (citation
omitted). Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. Accordingly, the plaintiff
failed to allege facts creating "a substantial risk of serious
harm" and, therefore, has not established a viable Eighth
Amendment or art. 26 claim. Torres, 427 Mass. at 613-614.
Further, the plaintiff failed to allege facts that would
demonstrate that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference. "[T]he showing of deliberate indifference
necessary to satisfy the subjective element of a claim of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement involves a
demonstration that prison officials had a culpable state of
mind" (quotation and citation omitted). Foster v. Commissioner
of Correction, 488 Mass. 643, 652 (2021). The required culpable
state of mind must rise to the level of "conscious[] disregar[d]
5 [of] a substantial risk of serious harm" (citations omitted).
Id. at 653.
As noted, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff notified
the defendants that the lack of heat in his cell for ten days in
September of 2024 had caused him to experience shivering, pain
due to his arthritis, and trouble sleeping. Because these
allegations were insufficient to establish "a substantial risk
of serious harm," they were also insufficient to establish that
the defendants acted with a "conscious[] disregar[d] [of] a
substantial risk of serious harm" (citation omitted). Foster,
488 Mass. at 652-653.
3. Fraud and conspiracy claims. The fraud claims are
merely conclusory assertions, and therefore insufficient to
state a claim. See Iannacchino, 451 Mass. at 633 (courts "do
not accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual
allegations" [citation omitted]).
Finally, the conspiracy claims were properly dismissed.
The plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). This
statute establishes a cause of action based on a conspiracy to
interfere with civil rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). But the
plaintiff failed to allege any plausible violation of his civil
rights. See, e.g., Gattineri v. Lynnfield, 58 F.4th 512, 516
(1st Cir. 2023) ("Without any viable § 1983 claims to anchor
6 Appellants' § 1985(3) conspiracy to violate their civil rights
claim, . . . [there is] no need to delve into it").4
Judgment of dismissal affirmed.
By the Court (Rubin, Brennan & Wood, JJ.5),
Clerk
Entered: January 30, 2026.
4 To the extent that we do not discuss other arguments made by the plaintiff, they have not been overlooked. "We find nothing in them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).
5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.