Opinion
19-P-567
12-17-2019
Richard CROTTY v. Maura HEALEY & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In this civil action the plaintiff, an inmate serving a life sentence for murder in the second degree, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of various statutes, regulations, guidelines of the Parole Board, and the inmate classification system at the Department of Correction. Following a hearing, a Superior Court judge denied the plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment on the pleadings, and summarily allowed the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings "for the reasons set forth in the [d]efendants' consolidated response to [the p]laintiff's motion for judgment on the [p]leadings." On appeal, the plaintiff's principal argument is that the judge erred in failing to "address and explain all of [the plaintiff's] claims." We affirm.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (c), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Welch v. Sudbury Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc., 453 Mass. 352, 353 (2009). We review the judge's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. See Ridgeley Mgt. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Gosnold, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 793, 797 (2012) ( rule 12 [c] motion reviewed de novo).
As a threshold matter, the plaintiff waived any argument regarding the absence of a written explanation or findings because that issue was not raised in the Superior Court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Green v. Brookline, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 128 (2001). Even if we were to reach the merits, the plaintiff's argument is not persuasive. "Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under [r]ules 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in [r]ule 41 (b) (2)." Mass. R. Civ. P. 52 (a), as amended 423 Mass. 1402 (1996). Because the judge decided this case on cross motions for judgment on the pleadings under rule 12 (c), he was not required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law. Although the judge was not required to offer an explanation for his ruling, he did so by adopting the reasoning set forth in the defendants' responsive pleading. Nothing more was required. Accordingly, the judge did not err in summarily allowing the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
We also note that the plaintiff's notice of appeal raised only the judge's denial of his motion for judgment on the pleadings. It does not specify that the plaintiff has appealed the order allowing the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. We need not consider issues not stated in the notice of appeal. See Mass. R. A. P. 3 (c), appearing in 481 Mass. 1603 (2019). See also Siles v. Travenol Lab., Inc., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 354, 354 n.1 (1982).
We have not overlooked the plaintiff's claim in the underlying complaint that as an adult offender he should receive the same protections in the parole process afforded to juveniles. We see no merit in the argument as neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Supreme Judicial Court have held that adult defendants are entitled to "meaningful opportunity for release." See Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 471 Mass. 12, 18-19 (2015).
--------
Order denying motion for declaratory judgment on pleadings affirmed.