Rosado v. Commissioner of Correction
AC 16-P-680
| Mass. App. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- Christian Rosado, a Massachusetts prison inmate, had photos of known gang members found in his cell; prison staff then informed him he would be classified as a member of the Latin Kings (a Security Threat Group, "STG").
- The investigative services chief met with Rosado; after Rosado denied membership, Rosado was sent a letter (Feb. 12, 2015) stating his STG designation was "validated" and advising a five-day appeal right to the Commissioner.
- Rosado appealed to the Commissioner (Feb. 24, 2015), who denied relief; Rosado later sent additional correspondence contesting the designation.
- The STG designation limited Rosado’s prison job opportunities and, he alleged, exposed him to danger from rival inmates.
- Rosado sued the Commissioner and the Chief of Investigative Services (individually and officially), asserting claims under G. L. c. 249 § 4 (certiorari), the Fourteenth Amendment (due process / 42 U.S.C. § 1983), various state statutes/regulations, and defamation.
- The Superior Court dismissed the complaint; the Appeals Court affirmed, holding the designation was discretionary (not subject to certiorari) and did not implicate a protected liberty interest for due process purposes; defamation failed for lack of publication to a substantial segment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certiorari under G. L. c. 249 § 4 lies to review the STG designation | Rosado argued the designation was an administrative action subject to certiorari review | Defendants argued the designation was a discretionary administrative action, not a quasi‑judicial proceeding | Court: No certiorari — designation was discretionary, not an adjudicatory/quasi‑judicial proceeding |
| Whether the STG designation constituted a quasi‑judicial proceeding requiring formal procedures | Rosado relied on his meeting with investigative chief as a hearing | Defendants said the meeting lacked formal charges, witnesses, sworn testimony, findings, or statutory hearing requirements | Court: The one‑on‑one meeting was not quasi‑judicial; no procedural hearing was required |
| Whether the STG designation violated federal due process (§ 1983) by infringing a liberty interest | Rosado said designation and lost job opportunities deprived him of liberty without due process | Defendants argued the designation did not impose atypical and significant hardship and thus did not create a protected liberty interest | Court: No due process violation — designation and employment restrictions do not implicate a protected liberty interest under Meachum/Sandin framework |
| Whether the STG designation supported a defamation claim | Rosado claimed the false designation harmed his reputation and safety | Defendants noted no allegation that designation was published to a considerable and respectable segment of the community | Court: Defamation dismissed — no adequate allegation of publication to a substantial segment |
Key Cases Cited
- Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming Commn., 476 Mass. 591 (distinguishing adjudicatory v. discretionary administrative action and certiorari review)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (shift in confinement conditions alone does not create a liberty interest)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (state‑created liberty interests limited to atypical and significant hardships)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (liberty interests may arise from Constitution or state law; analysis of restrictions that trigger due process)
- Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 424 Mass. 46 (administrative transfer without hearing did not create a State‑created liberty interest)
- Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc., 367 Mass. 849 (publication requirement for defamation: must reach a considerable and respectable segment)