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
23-P-321
SETH WATSON
vs.
CAROL MICI1 & others.2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Seth Watson, filed a complaint in Superior
Court seeking a declaration that the North Central Correctional
Institution (NCCI) library services policy relating to the
photocopying of legal documents by inmates and part of the
corresponding Department of Correction (DOC) regulation are
unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement of the
NCCI policy. See 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478 (2017). Watson
also sought compensatory and punitive damages against the
defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights
1 Individually and as Commissioner of Correction.
2Department of Correction; Matthew Divris, individually and in his capacity as superintendent of North Central Correctional Institution, Gardner; and Carolyn Murray, individually and in her capacity as librarian at North Central Correctional Institution, Gardner. under G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. The court sua sponte
dismissed the complaint against DOC for failure to complete
service. See Superior Court Standing Order 1-88 (2020). A
judge of the Superior Court subsequently allowed the remaining
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and Watson appealed.
We affirm.
Background. We recite the pertinent facts alleged in
Watson's complaint. Watson is incarcerated at NCCI. He has a
disability that interferes with his daily functions and causes
him severe pain when he types or sits for long periods of time.
In 2021, Watson's two minor children stopped visiting him at
NCCI. In May 2021, in response to his request, the Probate and
Family Court sent Watson a form to petition for visitation.
Watson was instructed to send copies of the petition to his
children's mother and her attorney. Citing the applicable
regulations, NCCI librarian Carolyn Murray denied Watson's
request to make two photocopies of the petition. She told him
that, notwithstanding his disability, he could type copies using
a typewriter. Due to his limited access to the library during
the COVID-19 pandemic and the pain associated with his
disability, Watson spent about a month typing the two copies,
thus delaying his petition for visitation. When Watson later
requested to photocopy his response to the opposition to his
petition, Murray again denied his request for two photocopies.
2 Four days later, Watson finished typing the copies and mailed
them.
Discussion. 1. Request for declaratory and injunctive
relief. "We review the denial of a motion to dismiss de novo."
Drake v. Leicester, 484 Mass. 198, 199 (2020). "[T]he
fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts
requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation
and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners
with adequate law libraries . . . ." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 346 (1996), quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828
(1977). Because Watson alleged that the defendants interfered
with his constitutional right of access to the courts, he had a
private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Watson alleges that the defendants denied his access to the
courts by refusing to provide photocopies of his legal
documents. At the time, NCCI's procedure stated that
photocopying services were available to inmates "for the purpose
of reproducing original legal documents . . . in support of
[c]riminal litigation challenging the inmate's sentence . . . or
in support of civil litigation challenging the conditions of
[his] confinement." Cf. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478.05 (2017).
In July 2022, the photocopying procedure expanded to include
"[o]ther original legal documents upon showing of legal need."
Because Watson seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with
3 respect to a policy that is no longer in effect, his request for
equitable relief is moot. See Lynn v. Murrell, 489 Mass. 579,
582 (2022) ("A party no longer has a personal stake in a case
where a court can order no further effective relief" [quotations
and citation omitted]). Watson also asserts that the issue is
ripe for review because, even though the revised policy broadens
the category of legal documents for which photocopying services
are available, the corresponding DOC regulation was not
similarly amended. However, Watson does not contend that he
will imminently suffer an injury under the revised policy, thus
his claim is not yet ripe for review. See Department of
Community Affairs v. Massachusetts State College Bldg. Auth.,
378 Mass. 418, 422 (1979) (power to render declaratory and other
relief limited to cases where actual controversy has arisen).
Even if we reached Watson's challenge to NCCI's prior
policy, his argument would fail for multiple reasons. In
particular, Watson ultimately was able to use NCCI library
services to file his legal documents, albeit after some delay.
Slower access to the courts is not the same as denial of access
to the courts and does not constitute a substantial injury. See
Casey, 518 U.S. at 351-352 (injury suffered by inmate must be
substantial, such as dismissal of action or inability to file
complaint). Watson's challenge to the DOC regulation fails for
the same reason.
4 2. Request for damages. Watson also sought damages
against the defendants under G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. The
defendants assert that they have qualified immunity. To
determine whether a defendant is entitled to a defense of
qualified immunity, we consider
"(1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff demonstrate that there was a violation of the plaintiff's Federal constitutional or statutory rights; (2) if so, whether at the time of the violation those rights were clearly established; and (3) whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights" (footnote omitted).
Cristo v. Evangelidis, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 585, 590 (2016). As
discussed above, the defendants did not violate Watson's
constitutional right to access the courts because he was able to
file his legal documents. Even if Watson had alleged facts
suggesting that the defendants' conduct infringed on his right
to access the courts, however, any right to photocopies of the
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
23-P-321
SETH WATSON
vs.
CAROL MICI1 & others.2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Seth Watson, filed a complaint in Superior
Court seeking a declaration that the North Central Correctional
Institution (NCCI) library services policy relating to the
photocopying of legal documents by inmates and part of the
corresponding Department of Correction (DOC) regulation are
unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement of the
NCCI policy. See 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478 (2017). Watson
also sought compensatory and punitive damages against the
defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights
1 Individually and as Commissioner of Correction.
2Department of Correction; Matthew Divris, individually and in his capacity as superintendent of North Central Correctional Institution, Gardner; and Carolyn Murray, individually and in her capacity as librarian at North Central Correctional Institution, Gardner. under G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. The court sua sponte
dismissed the complaint against DOC for failure to complete
service. See Superior Court Standing Order 1-88 (2020). A
judge of the Superior Court subsequently allowed the remaining
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and Watson appealed.
We affirm.
Background. We recite the pertinent facts alleged in
Watson's complaint. Watson is incarcerated at NCCI. He has a
disability that interferes with his daily functions and causes
him severe pain when he types or sits for long periods of time.
In 2021, Watson's two minor children stopped visiting him at
NCCI. In May 2021, in response to his request, the Probate and
Family Court sent Watson a form to petition for visitation.
Watson was instructed to send copies of the petition to his
children's mother and her attorney. Citing the applicable
regulations, NCCI librarian Carolyn Murray denied Watson's
request to make two photocopies of the petition. She told him
that, notwithstanding his disability, he could type copies using
a typewriter. Due to his limited access to the library during
the COVID-19 pandemic and the pain associated with his
disability, Watson spent about a month typing the two copies,
thus delaying his petition for visitation. When Watson later
requested to photocopy his response to the opposition to his
petition, Murray again denied his request for two photocopies.
2 Four days later, Watson finished typing the copies and mailed
them.
Discussion. 1. Request for declaratory and injunctive
relief. "We review the denial of a motion to dismiss de novo."
Drake v. Leicester, 484 Mass. 198, 199 (2020). "[T]he
fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts
requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation
and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners
with adequate law libraries . . . ." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 346 (1996), quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828
(1977). Because Watson alleged that the defendants interfered
with his constitutional right of access to the courts, he had a
private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Watson alleges that the defendants denied his access to the
courts by refusing to provide photocopies of his legal
documents. At the time, NCCI's procedure stated that
photocopying services were available to inmates "for the purpose
of reproducing original legal documents . . . in support of
[c]riminal litigation challenging the inmate's sentence . . . or
in support of civil litigation challenging the conditions of
[his] confinement." Cf. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478.05 (2017).
In July 2022, the photocopying procedure expanded to include
"[o]ther original legal documents upon showing of legal need."
Because Watson seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with
3 respect to a policy that is no longer in effect, his request for
equitable relief is moot. See Lynn v. Murrell, 489 Mass. 579,
582 (2022) ("A party no longer has a personal stake in a case
where a court can order no further effective relief" [quotations
and citation omitted]). Watson also asserts that the issue is
ripe for review because, even though the revised policy broadens
the category of legal documents for which photocopying services
are available, the corresponding DOC regulation was not
similarly amended. However, Watson does not contend that he
will imminently suffer an injury under the revised policy, thus
his claim is not yet ripe for review. See Department of
Community Affairs v. Massachusetts State College Bldg. Auth.,
378 Mass. 418, 422 (1979) (power to render declaratory and other
relief limited to cases where actual controversy has arisen).
Even if we reached Watson's challenge to NCCI's prior
policy, his argument would fail for multiple reasons. In
particular, Watson ultimately was able to use NCCI library
services to file his legal documents, albeit after some delay.
Slower access to the courts is not the same as denial of access
to the courts and does not constitute a substantial injury. See
Casey, 518 U.S. at 351-352 (injury suffered by inmate must be
substantial, such as dismissal of action or inability to file
complaint). Watson's challenge to the DOC regulation fails for
the same reason.
4 2. Request for damages. Watson also sought damages
against the defendants under G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. The
defendants assert that they have qualified immunity. To
determine whether a defendant is entitled to a defense of
qualified immunity, we consider
"(1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff demonstrate that there was a violation of the plaintiff's Federal constitutional or statutory rights; (2) if so, whether at the time of the violation those rights were clearly established; and (3) whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights" (footnote omitted).
Cristo v. Evangelidis, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 585, 590 (2016). As
discussed above, the defendants did not violate Watson's
constitutional right to access the courts because he was able to
file his legal documents. Even if Watson had alleged facts
suggesting that the defendants' conduct infringed on his right
to access the courts, however, any right to photocopies of the
documents was not clearly established at the time the defendants
relied on existing policy and regulations. See Longval v.
Commissioner of Correction, 448 Mass. 412, 418-419 (2007)
(qualified immunity is so broad that "all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law" are immune
5 to civil suits [citation omitted]). Thus, Watson's claim for
damages was properly dismissed for that reason as well.3
3. Department of Correction's dismissal from the
complaint. The decision whether to allow a motion for
reconsideration rests within the sound discretion of the motion
judge. See Audubon Hill S. Condominium Ass'n v. Community Ass'n
Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 470 (2012).
The movant "should specify (1) changed circumstances such as
(a) newly discovered evidence or information, or (b) a
development of relevant law; or (2) a particular and
demonstrable error in the original ruling or decision"
(quotation omitted). Id.
On February 11, 2022, Watson moved to extend the February
25 deadline to perfect service of process on DOC to April 15,
2022. On March 22, 2022, Watson mailed the complaint to DOC.
At that time, no action had been taken on his motion to extend
the deadline. On May 27, 2022, the judge dismissed DOC from the
complaint. On June 21, 2022, the judge allowed Watson's motion
to extend the deadline to April 15, 2022. On July 27, 2022, the
judge denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the
3 Similarly, even if we reached Watson's claims under G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I, his complaint alleged no facts plausibly suggesting that the defendants engaged in "threats, intimidation, or coercion" and thus would be dismissed on that ground. See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008).
6 dismissal. To support his motion, Watson offered proof that he
served DOC on March 22, 2022, after the February 25 deadline but
before the April 15 deadline that he had requested. We discern
no error in the judge's denial of the motion for reconsideration
where the deadline for service had passed at the time the court
dismissed DOC from the complaint. Moreover, even if the
complaint against DOC had been reinstated, it would have been
properly dismissed for at least the same reasons that apply to
the claims against the other defendants.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Green, C.J., Englander & Brennan, JJ.4),
Assistant Clerk
Entered: May 17, 2024.
4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.