Opinion
15-P-185
02-24-2016
JAMES RIVA, SECOND v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its 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 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).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se plaintiff, James Riva, Second, is an inmate at the Old Colony Correctional Center within the Massachusetts Department of Correction (department). In 2004, he filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to the alleged failure of the department to provide Muslim prisoners with a regular diet of halal meat. A judge of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the department, and this court affirmed. See Riva v. Commissioner of Correction, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (2007). Final judgment entered in favor of the defendant Commissioner of Correction (commissioner).
In 2008, Riva filed a motion for relief from judgment, relying heavily on the Federal District Court ruling in Hudson v. Dennehy, 538 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D. Mass. 2008), which ordered the department to provide halal diets to the plaintiff prisoners in that case. A second judge denied the motion as moot. Riva again moved for relief from judgment, and, following several filings by him and the commissioner, an order entered on October 8, 2008, denying the motion as moot following receipt of an affidavit providing "that as of 8/4/08 Halal meals are now available to any Muslim inmate requesting them in all Department of Corrections [Facilities]."
Based on docket entries, these filings appear to concern access to halal diets following the ruling in Hudson v. Dennehy, supra.
On June 9, 2014, Riva again filed a motion for relief from judgment, presumably alleging various failures by the department in fairly implementing the halal diet program. The motion was denied by a third judge; Riva subsequently moved for reconsideration of that order. The third judge denied the motion, on the ground that Riva's present claims of error are unrelated to the underlying judgment in this case. Riva noticed appeals as to each ruling.
Riva does not include the motion in his record appendix.
Specifically, the orders entered July 8, 2014, and August 14, 2014, denying Riva's requested relief.
A judge's disposition of a Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), motion "will be set aside only on a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Murphy v. Administrator of the Div. of Personnel Admn., 377 Mass. 217, 227 (1979). None has been shown here. The reasons stated by the third motion judge are sound, as the matters raised, as far as we can tell, are new disputes, about either the halal diet implementation or Riva's desire to become involved in the Hudson v. Dennehy litigation, that do not fall within the limited purview of rule 60(b). See generally Johnny's Oil Co. v. Eldayha, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 705, 708 (2012).
Orders entered July 8, 2014, and August 14, 2014, affirmed.
By the Court (Cohen, Katzmann & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: February 24, 2016.