Bartlett v. Mass. Parole Bd.
| Decision Date | 15 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11479-WGY |
| Parties | KENNETH BARTLETT, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
YOUNG, D.J.
On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff Kenneth Bartlett ("Bartlett"), a prisoner at MCI Concord, filed a self-prepared civil rights action against the Massachusetts Parole Board ("MPB"), and members of the MPB, including Josh Wall, Cesar Achilla, Charlene Bonner, Shelia Dupre, Ina Howard-Hogan, Roger Michel, and Lucy Soto-Abbe. Bartlett alleges the defendants violated his due process rights by arbitrarily applying false and misleading facts and evidence to deny him parole and to justify a second consecutive five-year parole hearing review date. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages.
The relevant background is a follows. Bartlett was convicted in 1992 for murder. In May, 2007, the MPB defendants held a parole hearing and denied parole. He then was given a five-year parole review. He contends that this five-year period is in violation of state law because, at the time his offense was committed (in 1992), Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 127, § 133A provided for a three-year parole review date instead of a five-year parole review date.
On May 22, 2012, the second five-year parole review hearing was held before the defendants. Bartlett again was denied parole, on the grounds that while he was incarcerated, hisinstitutional adjustments were poor. The defendants noted that he had accrued numerous disciplinary reports for bad behavior, including assaults on inmates and correctional officers, and disciplinary reports for the possession and/or use of illegal drugs. Further, the defendants cited to the multiple times that Bartlett was returned to higher security to serve lengthy terms in disciplinary detention for a variety of violations. Additionally, the defendants noted that his participation in programs was limited due to his frequent transfer and placements in administrative detention. Finally, the defendants noted that the Department of Correction identified Bartlett as gang-involved. In sum, the defendants found Bartlett's institutional history to be "among the very worst." Compl. at ¶ 18.
Bartlett claims that the facts relied upon by the MPB members were distorted and were placed falsely within the record. Specifically, he contends that there is tangible evidence undermining the record with respect to his possession of illegal drugs, his involvement in prison programs, and his gang involvement. He also takes issue with the characterization that his institutional history was the "very worst" because there was no evidence of any gang involvement nor any evidence to compare his institutional history with that of other inmates. Further, Bartlett claims that his disciplinary report regarding the unauthorized use of drugs or drug paraphernalia was dismissed. Finally, he contends his risk of violence and recidivism was assessed at "low." Id. at 24-25.
Bartlett appealed the MPB's decision denying him parole and setting a five-year parole review, but his appeal also was denied. He again asserts that the imposition of a five-year parole review, rather than a three-year parole review, violates state law, citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E, § 3(I) (Recommended sentencing guidelines).
In addition to filing the Complaint and exhibits, Bartlett filed a Motion for Leave toProceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 3).
On June 25, 2013, this action was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Boal to the undersigned. The same day, a Procedural Order (Docket No. 7) issued denying Bartlett's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis because he did not submit his certified prison account statement. On July 10, 2013, Bartlett filed a renewed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. P), along with his prison account statement (Docket No. 10). Additionally, Bartlett filed a package of Exhibits (Docket No. 11) to supplement his Complaint. These include copies of the MPB decision dated June 5, 2012, a Disciplinary Report for May 7, 2009, a Disciplinary Report for August 2-10, 2009, Bartlett's Personalized Program Plan (re: Risk Assessment), Bartlett's appeal, dated June 22, 2012, and the MPB's action dated December 11, 2012 indicating the request was denied.
Upon review of the financial disclosures contained in Bartlett's renewed in forma pauperis motion and in his prison account statement, this Court finds he lacks funds to pay the civil action filing fee. Accordingly, his Renewed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 9) will be ALLOWED. However, because Bartlett is a prisoner, he is obligated to make payments toward the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
In light of this, it is hereby Ordered that:
This assessment is made apart from any other assessments made in other civil actions filed by Bartlett; however, for purposes of clarification for crediting any funds received, and to facilitate proper record-keeping by the Treasurer's Office at MCI Concord and by the Clerk's Office Accounting Department, this Court intends that any funds received from Bartlett's prison account first be applied to any prior Order of a Court assessing a filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.2
Because Bartlett is a prisoner, he is subject to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), Title VIII of Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-1375 (1996), enacted several provisions which grant the court the authority to screen and dismiss prisoner complaints. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ();28 U.S.C. § 1915A ().
Section 1915 authorizes federal courts to dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the action lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), or if the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii) and (iii). In forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte and without notice under § 1915 if the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual allegations that are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-328; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
In connection with the preliminary screening conducted here, Bartlett's Complaint is construed generously because he is proceeding pro se. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000). However, even under a broad reading, the claims presented in this action does not pass muster for the reasons set forth below.
Bartlett's claim of due process violations arising from the 2007 MPB decision setting a five-year parole review (instead of a three-year parole review) is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 Because § 1983 contains nolimitations period, federal courts borrow the relevant state-law statute of limitations for personal injury torts. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985) (); McIntosh v. Antonino, 71 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 1995). In Massachusetts, that period is three years. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.
In light of this, Barlett's claim that in 2007, the MPB and its members violated his due process rights (by imposing a five-year parole review period instead of a three-year period) is not cognizable and will be DISMISSED. See Crotty v. Massachusetts Parole Board, et al., 2012 WL 3628904 (D. Mass. 2012); Civil Action No. 10-40245-FDS (Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 30) ( similar claim based on a 2003 MPB decision).
Bartlett has failed to state a claim for relief against the MPB. The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution4 generally is recognized as a bar to suits in federal courts against a State, its departments and its agencies, unless the State has consented to suit orCongress has overridden the State's immunity. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Hudson Sav. Bank v. Austin, 479 F.3d 102, 105-06 (1st Cir. 2007).
Here, Bartlett brings suit against the MPB, which is an agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This Court cannot discern any claim for relief against the MPB for which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has waived its immunity or Congress has overridden it.
As an additional matter, § 1983 provides that any "person," acting under the color of state law, who "subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The MPB, as a state or an agency thereof, is not a "person" for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989).
Accordingly, all claims against the MPB will be DISMIS...
To continue reading
Request your trial