Beryl v. Superintendent, 00-P-1092.
Decision Date | 24 July 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 00-P-1092.,00-P-1092. |
Citation | 772 N.E.2d 595,55 Mass. App. Ct. 906 |
Parties | Robert BERYL v. SUPERINTENDENT, Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, & others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff, an inmate at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, received a disciplinary report alleging that he assaulted and verbally abused a correction officer during an April 12, 1999, dining hall altercation, which was recorded by the facility's video surveillance equipment. The plaintiff successfully requested the videotape and introduced it at the disciplinary hearing, where it was viewed by the hearing officer. The hearing officer found the plaintiff guilty, imposed sanctions and issued a decision stating that it was "based on the reporting officer[']s written report and his oral statements made during the hearing and the video used during the hearing."
Appearing pro se, the plaintiff brought a timely action in the nature of certiorari in Superior Court under G. L. c. 249, § 4, seeking judicial review of the disciplinary decision. He promptly filed a motion to compel the production of the videotape that was seen and considered by the hearing officer. This motion was not opposed by the defendants and was allowed on November 23, 1999. Nevertheless, the defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in reliance upon a certified copy of the administrative record that did not include the videotape. The plaintiff then filed another motion to compel the defendants to file the complete administrative record, including the videotape. On March 7, 2000, a second judge of the Superior Court ordered that unless the defendants responded to the motion within fourteen days, the motion to compel automatically would be allowed. The defendants did not respond, thus triggering allowance of the motion to compel on March 21, 2000. Although the videotape was never produced to the plaintiff or filed in court as part of the administrative record, a third judge, on April 3, 2000, allowed the defendants' dispositive motion, treating it as a motion for summary judgment.
The judgment must be reversed and the case remanded because the videotape evidence considered by the hearing officer was not provided to the reviewing judge. In an action in the nature of certiorari, the court's task is to review the administrative record for substantial errors of law that affect material rights. See Gloucester v. Civil Serv. Commn., 408 Mass. 292, 297, 557 N.E.2d 1141 (1990). It follows that for this type of review to take place, all of the evidence considered at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sullivan v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.-Shirley, 19-P-1734
...(2013). These hearings are reviewed by a certiorari action under G. L. c. 249, § 4. See Beryl v. Superintendent, Souza Baranowski Correctional Ctr., 55 Mass. App. Ct. 906, 907, 772 N.E.2d 595 (2002). Where, as here, an inmate files a grievance against a prison outside the context of an inma......
-
Grady v. Comm'r of Corr.
...§ 4. See McLellan v. Commissioner of Correction, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 933, 934, 558 N.E.2d 3 (1990); Beryl v. Superintendent, Souza–Baranowski Center, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 906, 907, 772 N.E.2d 595 (2002). Thus, the judge did not err in dismissing Grady's appeal from the superintendent's grievance dec......
-
Evans v. Thompson
...Court held that "due process requires procedural protections before a prison inmate can be deprived of a protected liberty interest[.]" Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 453, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985). The parties to the instant case assu......
-
Sullivan v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution-Shirley
... ... 126, 131-133 (2013). These ... hearings are reviewed by a certiorari action under G. L. c ... 249, § 4. See Beryl v. Superintendent, ... Souza-Baranowski Correctional Ctr ., 55 Mass.App.Ct. 906, ... 907 (2002) ... Where, ... ...