From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Comm'r of Corr.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 18, 2012
No. 10-P-650 (Mass. Apr. 18, 2012)

Opinion

10-P-650

04-18-2012

SEAN M. THOMAS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & 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

Sean M. Thomas, an inmate at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, appeals from a judgment dismissing his certiorari complaint stemming from a prison disciplinary hearing that occurred while he was incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction (MCI-CJ) in 2000. Thomas argues that (1) his due process rights were violated when he was denied the right to present evidence in his defense during the prison disciplinary hearing; and (2) the order requiring him to pay restitution of thirty-six dollars exceeded the authority conferred on the Department of Correction (DOC) by the Legislature. We affirm.

On February 3, 2000, Thomas refused to provide a urine sample to prison authorities. As a result, a disciplinary report issued, and a hearing was scheduled. Thomas admitted at the hearing that he refused to provide the sample. He stated that he believed the sample was only requested because an officer was retaliating against him, and attempted to offer proof of the retaliation, but his request was denied. The hearing officer found Thomas guilty of refusing to submit a urine specimen. Thomas was sanctioned by losing television, radio, canteen, and phone privileges for six weeks and was ordered to pay thirty-six dollars in restitution.

Pursuant to 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.24 (1993), '[r]efusal to . . . provide a urine specimen' is a disciplinary offense.

Thomas alleged that the correction officer ordered a urine sample five days earlier than planned as retaliation against him for testimony at a criminal trial.

Thomas apparently had failed to provide urine samples in the past.

Thomas's appeal to the superintendent was denied. He filed this action in Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties filed cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, and the motion judge found for the defendants.

Judgment entered on March 14, 2002, and Thomas's appeal was docketed on May 7, 2002. It is unclear from the record why the case took so long to appear on our docket.

On appeal, Thomas argues that the hearing officer erred by denying his request to present evidence in his defense and that the DOC's seizure of funds from his account exceeded its authority. Both contentions are without merit.

General Laws c. 124, § 1(q), inserted by St. 1972, c. 777, § 5, grants the Commissioner of Correction (commissioner) the authority to 'make and promulgate necessary rules and regulations incident to the exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties including but not limited to rules and regulations regarding nutrition, sanitation, safety, [and] discipline . . . .' Additionally, prison funds may be impounded as part of a disciplinary sanction after the State holds a disciplinary hearing. See, e.g., Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 939-940 (10th Cir. 1989). '[R]estitution as a disciplinary sanction is a part of the [c]ommissioner's . . . broad grant of statutory authority to maintain prison discipline[;] withdrawing funds from [a prisoner]'s account to satisfy a restitution sanction [does] not violate any statutorily protected property interest . . . .' Ciampi v. Commissioner of Correction, 452 Mass. 162, 163 (2008).

Here, Thomas was given a disciplinary hearing with proper notice of the complaint against him and had adequate opportunity to raise a defense. Thomas admitted to the offense and sought only to introduce irrelevant evidence. As a result, the sanction of thirty-six dollars was appropriate and within the authority of the commissioner under G. L. c. 124, § 1(q).

The evidence -- namely, the date of his last urine test and the list of other inmates to be tested on February 3, 2000 -- was properly denied as not relevant to the ultimate question of Thomas's refusal to submit to the test.

We also agree with the motion judge that no error was made in denying Thomas's request to admit the 'retaliation evidence' since the evidence was not relevant to the ultimate question whether Thomas refused to submit a urine sample. Thomas admitted during his disciplinary hearing that he refused to give a urine sample. In addition to Thomas's admission, the disciplinary report provided the hearing officer with legally sufficient evidence to find Thomas guilty. As a result, we conclude that failing to admit the evidence did not violate Thomas's due process rights.

For these reasons, as well as for substantially those in the Commonwealth's brief and the memorandum of decision of the motion judge, we affirm the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Kantrowitz, Wolohojian & Sullivan JJ.),


Summaries of

Thomas v. Comm'r of Corr.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 18, 2012
No. 10-P-650 (Mass. Apr. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Thomas v. Comm'r of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:SEAN M. THOMAS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & others.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Apr 18, 2012

Citations

No. 10-P-650 (Mass. Apr. 18, 2012)