Opinion
21-P-210
04-14-2022
Benjamin SILVA v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Benjamin Silva, a prisoner at Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley (MCI-Shirley), appeals from a Superior Court judge's dismissal of his complaint alleging that the defendants, various employees of the Department of Correction (DOC), violated his constitutional rights and the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He argues that the denial of his request to possess materials specific to his Wiccan religion impermissibly hinders his religious practice and violates his rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the United States Constitution, and the RLUIPA. We affirm.
Background. We derive the facts from Silva's complaint, accepting as true the facts alleged therein as well as any reasonable inferences fairly drawn therefrom. See Lopez v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 696, 700 (2012). On January 15, 2018, Silva, a sincere practitioner of the Eclectic Tradition of the Wiccan religion, "submitted a Religious Services Request form [to the Religious Services Review Committee (RSRC)] asking that he be allowed to receive the Dark Tarot ... as well as color prints of the images Diagonal of Dreams and Echo of the Moon." In this request and supporting documentation, Silva noted that the two specific deity image prints he sought were essential to his religious practice because they "represent distinct aspects of the Goddess, worshiped through different ceremonies." Silva asserted that without having access to specific deity images "based on the teachings of Wiccan author Raven Grimassi," he is unable "to channel and direct the energy of his worship," and thus "his prayers and ceremonies go unheard." Furthermore, he stated that he sought the Dark Tarot card set because the set of Tarot cards made available to him in the commissary depicted "symbolism [ ] entirely inappropriate for a Wiccan religious item ... [and are] unusable for [his] religious purposes."
On April 5, 2018, Silva's request was denied because the requested materials "depict[ed] multiple images of nudity." Approximately two weeks later, on April 17, 2018, Silva appealed the decision of the RSRC to the Commissioner. The Commissioner upheld the RSRC decision and sent Silva a notice stating that the decision was final on June 19, 2018. On December 4, 2018, Silva filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that "egregious and unnecessary burdens" had been placed on his religious exercise in violation of art. 2 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; art. 46, §§ 1 and 4, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution; the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and the RLUIPA.
On April 10, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), arguing that Silva failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that his claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. According to the motion, in 2010, Silva filed a "nearly identical" Federal complaint in the United States District Court, Silva vs. Clarke, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 10-CV-11381-RGS (D. Mass. Dec. 22, 2010) (prior Federal action). In his prior Federal complaint, Silva sought to obtain a deity-image book titled Secrets; requested that he be permitted to "create and possess personal drawings depicting nudity and sexual union for the purpose of practicing Wicca"; and asked that he be provided access to a specific Tarot deck set, the Black Tarot. The DOC denied each of these materials because they contained prohibited depictions of nudity that were "not appropriate to enter the institution" and were deemed "sexually explicit material" under DOC regulations. Silva filed a complaint alleging that the denial of his requests impeded on his religious practice and violated his rights under the United States Constitution and the RLUIPA. This prior Federal action was dismissed for failure to state a claim on December 22, 2010.
In the present case, the defendants asserted in their motion to dismiss that because the claims were or could have been raised in Silva's prior Federal complaint, he is barred from asserting them now. On October 15, 2020, a Superior Court judge issued a margin order allowing the defendants’ motion for the reasons set forth in the defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss. Silva now appeals therefrom.
Discussion. "We review the allowance of a motion to dismiss de novo" (citation omitted). Lopez, 463 Mass. at 700. We accept "as true the factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint, as well as any favorable inferences that reasonably can be drawn from them" (quotations and citation omitted). Id. The central issue in the present case is whether the claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata is a term that includes claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See Mancuso v. Kinchla, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 564 (2004). "The doctrine of claim preclusion makes a valid, final judgement conclusive on the parties and their privies, and bars further litigation of all matters that were or should have been adjudicated in the action ... This is so even though the claimant is prepared in a second action to present different evidence or legal theories to support his claim, or seeks different remedies." Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23 (1998). "When a State court is faced with the issue of determining the preclusive effect of a Federal court's judgement, it is the Federal law of res judicata which must be examined." Anderson v. Phoenix Inv. Counsel of Boston, Inc., 387 Mass. 444, 449 (1982). A Federal res judicata defense bars a claim if three elements are satisfied: "(1) the earlier suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, (2) the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits are sufficiently identical or related, and (3) the parties in the two suits are sufficiently identical or closely related." Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 2010). All three elements are satisfied in this case.
The prior Federal action involving the denial of requests to possess materials specific to Silva's Wiccan religion, containing images of "sexually explicit material," resulted in a final judgement on the merits against Silva. Therefore, the first element of the test has been satisfied.
The judge in the prior Federal action allowed the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. He determined that Silva's religious practice was not substantially burdened by the prohibition of "sexually explicit material," violative of DOC regulations. Not only was there a compelling government interest for the DOC to restrict the availability of such materials, but there also remained alternative means, approved by the DOC, for Silva to use in the practice of his religion.
As to the second element, both of Silva's claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts. "To determine whether sufficient subject matter identity exists between an earlier and a later suit, federal courts employ a transactional approach." Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 755 (1st Cir. 1994). "[A] valid and final judgment in an action will extinguish subsequent claims ‘with respect to all or any part of the transaction ... out of which the action arose’ " (citation omitted). Id. It is not required that the present cause of action "be a clone of the earlier cause of action." Massachusetts Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 1998). The prior Federal action and the present State action each stem from the prohibition of Silva from possessing materials depicting nudity or "sexually explicit material." Furthermore, both contain the core argument that the actions of the defendants, through banning materials specific to Silva's Wiccan religion, impede on his religious practice and violate his rights. In his prior Federal complaint, Silva alleged that his rights under the United States Constitution and the RLUIPA were violated when the DOC denied him a deity-image book titled Secrets; the ability to "create and possess personal drawings depicting nudity and sexual union for the purpose of practicing Wicca"; and a specific Tarot deck set, the Black Tarot. In Silva's present complaint, he alleged that his rights under the Massachusetts Constitution and Declaration of Rights, in addition to United States Constitution and the RLUIPA, were violated when the DOC denied him color prints of the Diagonal of Dreams and Echo of the Moon deity images and the Dark Tarot, a more recent edition of the Black Tarot.
Though Silva presents an additional legal theory in his present complaint by arguing that the DOC committed State rights violations, each of the claims asserted are based on the same nucleus of operative facts, and therefore, were or could have been raised and adjudicated in Silva's prior Federal complaint. Whether Silva's religious practice was burdened by the prohibition of "sexually explicit material," deemed to violate DOC regulations, was an issue already litigated and determined in his prior Federal action.
In response to the application of res judicata, Silva maintains that the claims he asserts in the present complaint are "new and independent" of those in his prior Federal complaint. In addition, he states that "[r]es judicata does not bar claims predicated on events that postdate the filing of the initial complaint" (citation omitted). Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582, 600 (2016). These arguments are unavailing. Though Silva's complaints were filed years apart and the materials denied by the DOC in both instances were not precisely identical, the causes of action need not be exactly the same. Rather, "a ‘transaction’ ... [is to] be determined pragmatically," giving weight to such factors as "whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation." (citation omitted). Gonzalez, 27 F.3d at 756. See Mancuso, 60 Mass. App. Ct. at 571 (all issues arose out of same nucleus of operative facts when one agreement remained at "core of each of the appellants’ [ ] actions" and contributed to "series of temporally and substantively interrelated transactions and circumstances"). In analyzing these cases pragmatically, we conclude that both causes of action asserted by Silva arose out of a single transaction -- the DOC's regulation regarding the prohibition of "sexually explicit materials."
The third element of res judicata was also satisfied, as the defendants in the prior Federal complaint stand in privity with the defendants in the present complaint. "A judgment is res judicata in a second action upon the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them." Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402 (1940). "[C]laim preclusion applies if [there is privity or] if the new defendant is ‘closely related to a defendant from the original action -- who was not named in the previous law suit’ " (citation omitted). Airframe Sys., Inc., 601 F.3d at 17. "[A] person who was not a party in an earlier action may raise preclusion in a subsequent action if the [defendants] in that action have a close and significant relationship with the original [defendants] or when ‘the party against whom [res judicata] is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to judicial resolution of the same issue’ in the earlier action." Mancuso, 60 Mass. App. Ct. at 568, quoting In re El San Juan Hotel Corp., 841 F.2d 6, 11 (1st Cir. 1988). See Mancuso, supra at 569-570 (relationship between defendants was "close and significant" when new defendant ran business of prior defendant and thus acquired "practical control" of prior defendant).
In each of his complaints, Silva named the individuals who held the position of DOC Commissioner and Superintendent as defendants. The named defendants in the present complaint are successors of the defendants in the prior Federal complaint. Under these circumstances, the third element of res judicata has been satisfied. See Mancuso, 60 Mass. App. Ct. at 570.
The named defendants in the prior Federal action were Harold W. Clarke, former Commissioner of Correction; Thomas Dickhaut, former Superintendent of the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; Duane J. MacEachern, former Superintendent of MCI-Shirley; and Jane Doe.
Where, as here, all claims asserted in the present case were or could have been brought in the prior Federal action, and all the elements of res judicata have been met, Silva's complaint was properly dismissed.
Judgment affirmed.