Ivey v. Commissioner of Correction
88 Mass. App. Ct. 18
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Ivey and Lang, prisoners at MCI-Cedar Junction, challenge the DOC's informal DDU policy denying credit toward DDU sentences for disciplinary violations.
- The DDU policy states inmates lose time credit and privileges if guilty of specified disciplinary reports, implemented via the DDU manual.
- 2006 amendments to the DOC regulations removed the policy language, but the policy appeared in the DDU manual from 2008–2012, effectively enforcing it nonetheless.
- Ivey received a ten-year DDU sentence with sixteen guilty review periods; he was denied one month of credit per period, extending his release by sixteen months.
- Lang received a six-year DDU sentence with fourteen guilty periods; fourteen months of credit were denied via the policy, and Lang did not grievance the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 2006 amendments cancel the policy as law? | Policy conflicts with amended regs and is illegal. | Policy persisted as guidance despite amendments. | Yes; policy canceled by regulation amendments. |
| Does the policy violate the regulations by denying credit not listed as a sanction? | Denial of credit exceeds authorized sanctions. | Policy fills in details; enforcement permissible. | Policy conflicts with explicit sanctions; invalid. |
| Is DOC's prior enforcement of the policy despite amendments arbitrary or improper? | Continued enforcement is arbitrary and inequitable. | Agency can publish guidelines to fill in policy details. | Enforcement despite amendments improper; must cease. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenney v. Commissioner of Correction, 393 Mass. 28 (1984) (regulatory framework for disciplinary actions and deference to regulations)
- Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559 (2009) (penalties attributed to original DDU sentence; due process considerations)
- Stokes v. Commissioner of Correction, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 585 (1988) (agency regulations bind administrators; guidelines not controlling if misapplied)
- Doe v. Attorney Gen. (No. 1), 425 Mass. 210 (1997) (regulations control; final expression of the agency governs)