Opinion
No. 11–P–1245.
2012-08-29
Robert GRADY v. SUPERINTENDENT, OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, & another.
By the Court (MILLS, BROWN & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se plaintiff, Robert Grady, appeals from judgment on the pleadings entered pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(c), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), in favor of the defendants, the superintendent of the Old Colony Correctional Center (superintendent) and the Department of Correction (department), by a judge of the Superior Court. By that judgment, the judge disposed of the plaintiff's certiorari complaint seeking the return of certain personal property or the value of personal property alleged to have been taken or lost by officers of the defendant department. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Background. The briefs of the parties and the certiorari record show the following facts to be undisputed. On or about August 22, 2008, officers at the Old Colony Correctional Center moved Grady from his regular cell to a segregation unit for a period of four days. He alleges that, upon his return to the cell, personal property (including clothes and papers) valued at approximately $550 was missing. As a result of his complaint, an institutional grievance coordinator conducted an investigation. He examined Grady's itemization of missing items, interviewed the three correction officers involved in the collection and storage of Grady's personal property during his relocation, interviewed the property officer required to have performed an inventory of the items, and concluded that information or evidence failed to establish that items were missing or that any officers of the department were responsible for any missing items. The grievance coordinator observed also that Grady had changed his itemization of missing items from an original to a subsequent list.
Grady then appealed to the defendant superintendent. The superintendent concluded that, upon the basis of the research conducted by the grievance coordinator, he could not support the appeal. As a final phase of administrative procedure, Grady appealed to the department grievance manager. She also denied the appeal. She added that “it is important to note that a review of your property inventory dated [immediately after your return to your regular cell] revealed that you possessed [certain items of clothing] which is the maximum allowed per policy.”
The plaintiff then brought the present action of certiorari pursuant to G.L. c. 249, § 4, in Superior Court. His complaint recited (a) a claim for declaratory judgment, (b) a civil rights damages claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 (2006), and (c) a request for certiorari relief in the nature of the return of his property or appropriate damages. The judge conducted a hearing at which the plaintiff appeared and submitted oral argument. The judge drafted a written memorandum of decision in support of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants. He thereafter denied Grady's motion for reconsideration. This appeal has followed.
Analysis. Grady appeals from only the portion of the judgment adverse to his certiorari claim. In Massachusetts, a court reviewing an administrative decision under the standard of certiorari inspects the record in order to “correct substantial errors of law apparent on the record adversely affecting legal rights” of the petitioner. Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Municipal Ct. of Boston, 369 Mass. 84, 90 (1975), quoting from Sullivan v. Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives, 331 Mass. 135, 139 (1954). The court corrects substantial errors of law, if any, apparent on the record. See Bielawski v. Personnel Administrator of the Div. of Personnel Admn., 422 Mass. 459, 464 (1996). Additionally it will examine factual findings under the standard of substantial evidence. See Murphy v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., 396 Mass. 830, 833 (1986); Cepulonis v. Commissioner of Correction, 15 Mass.App.Ct. 292, 295–296 (1983). Finally, the reviewing court will examine an administrative decision for claimed arbitrariness, capriciousness, or abuse of discretion. Yerardi's Moody St. Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. Selectmen of Randolph, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 296, 300–304 (1985). We apply those standards to the decision of the institutional grievance coordinator (affirmed by the superintendent and by the department grievance manager without change).
No issue or error of law is apparent on the record. The gravamen of Grady's complaint is that the administrative decision lacked the support of substantial evidence and therefore constituted action arbitrary, capricious, or abusive of discretion. The record does not show those flaws.
The report of the grievance coordinator explains that he interviewed three officers involved in collection and storage of the disputed personal property, and the property officer charged with inventory of it. The coordinator's report observed that Grady's itemization of missing property had changed from an original list to a subsequent list. The superintendent did not revise the coordinator's findings. The department grievance manager observed that the record showed that Grady possessed the maximum amount of particular clothing items upon his return to his cell.
Under the standard of substantial evidence, a reviewing court may not “displace an administrative [decision maker's] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” Southern Worcester County Regional Vocational Sch. Dist. v. Labor Relations Commn., 386 Mass. 414, 420 (1982), quoting from Labor Relations Commn. v. University Hosp., Inc., 359 Mass. 516, 521 (1971). Additionally, the determination of the credibility of witnesses belongs to the administrative decision maker able to observe their demeanor as they offer information or evidence. See Fisch v. Board of Registration in Med., 437 Mass. 128, 138 (2002); Duggan v. Board of Registration in Nursing, 456 Mass. 666, 674 (2010). As we apply the administrative law standard to the quasi adjudicatory proceedings in this case, we must respect and defer to the findings of the grievance coordinator. Substantial evidence supports those findings. The validity of the findings precludes any action of a nature arbitrary, capricious, or abusive of discretion.
Finally, the grounds justify the validity of the Superior Court judge's original decision and his denial of the motion for reconsideration. In addition, he properly denied the request to remand the case for further investigation by the department. The plaintiff's complaint for certiorari relief did not specifically request any such relief, and the record shows no justification for it.
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.