Grady v. Commissioner of Correction
981 N.E.2d 730
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- Grady, an inmate at MTC, challenged a policy preventing CDs with legal materials in his cell.
- Initial grievance (no. 43530) granted partial relief: Grady could retain twelve legal CDs at a time.
- Grady filed a second grievance (no. 43746) about receiving a CD from Wareham District Court and delays prejudicing a motion for reconsideration; it was denied citing that CDs are not allowed in inmate quarters.
- Final decisions at issue were: superintendent’s denial on January 12, 2010, and related DOC responses; Grady sought certiorari under c. 249, §4 and declaratory relief under c. 231A in Superior Court.
- The trial court dismissed the appeal as untimely under c. 30A, §14 because the final action was the superintendent’s decision; the court also rejected declaratory relief as improper for a fact-specific grievance.
- This appeal concerns whether inmate grievances fall under c. 30A, §14 rather than the certiorari statute and whether the declaratory claim should proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute governs inmate grievance appeals—30A §14 or certiorari §4? | Grady argues c. 38H triggers 30A §14 review. | Defendants assert c. 38H adopts 30A §14 for grievance appeals. | c. 38H governs grievance appeals and requires 30A §14 review. |
| Whether final action occurred for timeliness purposes before the departmental reviewer acted | Grady contends department review constitutes final action. | Departmental coordinator's review is discretionary and not final. | Final action is the superintendent’s decision; departmental review is non-final. |
| Timeliness of Grady’s filing under 30A §14 | Filed within 30 days after notice of final decision? | Filed after the 30-day period. | Grady’s filing was untimely under 30A §14. |
| Whether declaratory judgment relief was proper | Grady sought declaratory relief regarding the regulation. | Regulatory challenge should be under grievance review, not declaratory relief. | Declaratory relief denied as improperly framed for a fact-specific grievance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuels Pharmacy, Inc. v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 390 Mass. 583 (Mass. 1983) (final agency action governs timing; lack of final action defeats jurisdiction)
- McLellan v. Commissioner of Correction, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 933 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990) (treats disciplinary review as certiorari-like when timely but improper for declaratory relief)
- Puleio v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 302 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (declaratory relief used to challenge disciplinary proceedings may be inappropriate in inmate grievance context)
- Averett v. Commissioner of Correction, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 280 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988) (distinguishes declaratory relief versus direct challenge to agency actions; ongoing violations required for declaratory relief)
- Flynn v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 668 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984) (tolling mechanisms and rehearing timelines under §14(1))
- Commonwealth v. Russ R., 433 Mass. 515 (Mass. 2001) (statutory interpretation; later statute governs when conflict with earlier statute)