Opinion
10-P-1096
03-07-2012
STEVEN SARGENT v. GARY RODEN & others.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Steven Sargent, a prisoner at MCI-Gardner, is serving a life sentence with a possibility of parole in 2015. He seeks to have all of the funds held in his prison savings account transferred to his personal account. The prison superintendent has twice denied his request. The plaintiff did not pursue any available administrative remedies, choosing instead to file an action in the Superior Court. A Superior Court judge allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, concluding that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of demonstrating that the superintendent's decision was an abuse of discretion or outside his authority.
We conclude that the plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed. First, the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as required under G. L. c. 127, § 38F. See generally Ryan v. Pepe, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 835-836 (2006). Second, we agree with the motion judge that under no view of the summary judgment record can the plaintiff meet his burden of demonstrating that the superintendent acted unlawfully. The statute and regulation provide that the authorization for such transfers shall be within the discretion of the superintendent. See G. L. c. 127, § 48A; 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 405.08(1), (3) (2004).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Cohen & Wolohojian, JJ.),