Rosado v. Commissioner of Correction, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-062-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-680                                        Appeals Court   CHRISTIAN ROSADO  vs.  COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & another.[1]     No. 16-P-680.   Middlesex.     February 7, 2017. – May 22, 2017.   Present:  Green, Meade, & Agnes, JJ.     Imprisonment, Safe environment.  Constitutional Law, Imprisonment.  Administrative Law, Judicial review.  Practice, Civil, Relief in the nature of certiorari, Motion to dismiss.  Due Process of Law, Prison regulation.  Libel and Slander.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 11, 2015.   A motion to dismiss was considered by Kenneth J. Fishman, J.     Christian Rosado, pro se. Katherine W. Briggs for the defendants.     GREEN, J.  The pro se plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, dismissing his complaint against the defendants, the Commissioner of Correction and the chief of the office of investigative services (investigative services chief).  In his complaint, the plaintiff asserted various claims stemming from the defendants’ designation of him as a member of the “Latin Kings,” a “security threat group” (STG).  The plaintiff denies that he is a member of the Latin Kings, and that his false designation as such subjects him to various harms entitling him to relief.  We agree with the judge that the plaintiff’s claim for certiorari relief, pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, does not lie because the designation was a discretionary administrative decision rather than an adjudicatory or quasi adjudicatory one, and that his due process claim fails because his designation as a member of an STG does not infringe upon a protected liberty interest.[2]  We accordingly affirm the judgment of dismissal. Background.  “We review the allowance of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and favorable inferences drawn therefrom.  Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674, 676 (2011), and cases cited.  We may also consider exhibits attached to the complaint and items appearing in the record.  Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., 462 Mass. 164, 165-166 (2012), citing Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 477 (2000).”  Lipsitt v. Plaud, 466 Mass. 240, 241 (2013). As we observed in the introduction, the plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction.[3]  In November, 2014, a search of his cell uncovered pictures of a number of […]

Read more...