Opinion
19-P-993
04-15-2020
Steven JOHNSON & another v. Kelly A. RYAN & another.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiffs, Steven Johnson and Manson Brown, are inmates within the custody of the Department of Correction (department). They currently are incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley (MCI-Shirley). The defendants, Kelly A. Ryan and Raymond Marchilli, are the former superintendents of MCI-Shirley. The plaintiffs appeal from a Superior Court judgment entered for the defendants upon the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims that they are denied winter clothing adequate to protect their health and comfort. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that by failing to provide such clothing, the department had violated various department and State regulations. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated the department's policies, Department of Public Health (DPH) regulations regarding clothing for inmates, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and art. 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. We agree that the defendants violated DPH and department regulations as to these two plaintiffs.
Procedural background. The plaintiffs' original complaint, filed pro se, was dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and sovereign and qualified immunity. A panel of this court, in an unpublished memorandum and order, affirmed so much of the judgment as dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G. L. c. 12, § 11I, but reversed and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the issue of declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, § 2. See Longval v. Commissioner of Correction, 404 Mass. 325, 332 (1989). Following remand, the plaintiffs, represented by counsel, amended their complaint and conducted discovery. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs' motion was denied; the defendants' motion was allowed, and judgment entered accordingly.
Johnson v. Ryan, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2016).
Standard of review. We review de novo the allowance of a motion for summary judgment. Dorrian v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 479 Mass. 265, 270 (2018). "In a case like this one where both parties have [in essence] moved for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment [has entered]." Id. at 271, quoting Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 462 Mass. 346, 350 (2012). A decision on a motion for summary judgment will be upheld if the judge "ruled on undisputed material facts and [the] ruling was correct as a matter of law." M.P.M. Bldrs., LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87, 89 (2004), quoting Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 439 Mass. 111, 115 (2003).
Facts. We summarize the undisputed facts. Ryan was the superintendent of MCI-Shirley from 2011 to 2016, and Marchilli was superintendent from 2016 to 2018. MCI-Shirley is comprised of a number of standalone buildings. Inmates must go outside to move from their housing units to access, among other places, food services, health services, religious services, the gym, and the visitor building.
The only winter clothing provided to inmates is a lined canvas coat. The department does not provide winter footwear. Inmates are given low cut canvas shoes, described as "almost like slippers." They are not insulated or waterproof. Ryan testified at her deposition that they were not climatically suitable for winter weather. The department provides the inmates with clothing, described as "scrubs," which is limited to cotton socks, undergarments, draw string pants and short sleeve shirts. Inmates can purchase winter clothing, including boots, a wool hat, wool gloves, and thermal underwear, from a privately run commissary. Inmates are not permitted to lend clothing to other inmates. The defendants acknowledge that there are no security issues with the requested winter clothing.
Brown, born in 1958 and age sixty-one at the time judgment entered in the Superior Court, has been an inmate at MCI-Shirley since 2013. Johnson, born in 1945 and age seventy-four at the time judgment entered in the Superior Court, has been an inmate since 2010. Johnson has kidney failure and receives dialysis treatments three days per week. The treatment takes three hours and Johnson is often taken back to his housing unit in a wheelchair because he is too weak to walk. Both plaintiffs are indigent. Brown's commissary account is "frozen" and any money he earns is applied to a restitution order. In May 2017, Johnson had less than one dollar in his commissary account. During the winter months, the plaintiffs have experienced freezing temperatures, snow, sleet, rain, and harsh winds. They have had colds, influenza, numb hands and feet, and have described feelings of "being frozen." Johnson suffers from arthritis, chronic back and leg pain, stomach pain, infections, and has had pneumonia. He reports suffering emotionally as well.
A series of grievances were filed by the plaintiffs in which they asked for winter hats, "thermals," and winter clothing. The grievances were denied for a multitude of reasons, ranging from "specialty clothing is ... not intended for the general population," to instructing Johnson that he should purchase items using funds from "outside sources" or "institutional employment." Johnson was also told that if there is a medical necessity, he could "pursue a medical order through health services." Notwithstanding this suggestion, the department health service provider acknowledged that it was not responsible for inmate clothing and did not have a policy about providing winter clothing.
Johnson's records show that he did earn money from institutional employment of $10 per week and received funds from outside sources.
Discussion. General Laws c. 111, § 21, empowers the DPH to promulgate regulations governing correctional facilities. "Each correctional facility is required ... to comply with Required Minimum Health and Sanitation Standards" as set out in the regulations. 105 Code Mass. Regs. § 451.011 (1994). It requires furnishing an inmate with "proper clothing to preserve health and comfort at all times of the year if his own wardrobe ... is not adequate for these purposes." 105 Code Mass. Regs. § 451.210 (1999).
Further, G. L. c. 124, § 1 (q ), requires that the department also "make and promulgate necessary rules and regulations incident to the exercise of [its] powers and the performance of [its] duties including but not limited to ... care[ ] and custody." See G. L. c. 124, § 1 (c ). This includes "[t]he issu[ance] of clean, suitable and presentable clothing ... as necessary." 103 Code. Mass. Regs. § 974.09 (2009). Accordingly, the department's policy development and compliance unit requires that inmate clothing be "properly fitted, climatically suitable, durable, and presentable" to comply with regulations. 103 DOC Policy 755.03 (1) (2017).
We conclude that, as a matter of law, neither Johnson nor Brown was furnished with proper winter clothing to preserve his health and comfort. The department argues that the regulation does not itemize the type of clothing contemplated by the DPH regulations, but that is unnecessary. The department is required to provide proper clothing to preserve "health and comfort" at all times of the year, but most especially during the winter (emphasis added). 103 DOC Policy 755.03 (1). For example, the department is required to provide inmates with a winter coat. 103 DOC Policy 755.04 (1) (2017). Common sense dictates that preservation of an inmate's health and comfort would also include providing hats, gloves, and proper footwear. This is particularly true where, as here, the correctional facility requires the inmates to walk outdoors to access everyday services. In order to eat, seek medical attention, or meet visitors, Johnson and Brown must go outside and walk to the appropriate building. The plaintiffs are older men and Johnson has chronic health conditions. They have each described the additional discomfort of being exposed to winter weather without climatically suitable clothing. In these circumstances, Johnson and Brown are entitled to a declaration that the department must provide them with climatically suitable winter clothing consisting of winter boots, hats, gloves, and thermal underwear. See G. L. c. 231A, § 2.
To the extent we have not specifically commented, we have carefully considered the plaintiffs' remaining arguments and have found them to be without merit. Given our disposition, the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees pursuant to 24 U.S.C. § 1983 and 24 U.S.C. § 1988, is denied.
Conclusion. So much of the judgment as dismissed count I of the amended complaint is vacated. The judgment shall be modified as to count I to declare that, as to Johnson and Brown, the department violated DPH regulation 105 Code Mass. Regs. § 451.210, department regulation 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 974.09, and internal policy 103 DOC Policy 755.03 (1), and the department shall provide the plaintiffs with climatically suitable winter clothing as detailed above. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
affirmed as modified in part; vacated in part.