Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction

• Decision Date: 07 January 1997
• Citation: 424 Mass. 46,674 N.E.2d 221
• Parties: Fred A. HASTINGS & others 1 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & others 2 (and a companion case 3 ).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 221

674 N.E.2d 221

424 Mass. 46

Fred A. HASTINGS & others ¹

v.

COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & others ² (and a companion case ³).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Middlesex.

Argued Dec. 3, 1996.

Decided Jan. 7, 1997.

Donald A. Harwood, New York City (Thomas E. Finnerty with him), for Christopher J. Pina & another.

Stephen J. Rappaport, East Providence, RI, for Fred A. Hastings & others.

Charles M. Wyzanski, Boston, for the Commissioner of Correction & others.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and ABRAMS, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

GREANEY, Justice.

In two consolidated actions filed in the Superior Court, the plaintiffs, six inmates serving life sentences for their convictions of murder in the second degree, sought injunctive and declaratory relief, damages, and attorney's fees in connection with an administrative order of the Commissioner of Correction (commissioner). The order, issued on March 11, 1991, transferred all inmates serving life sentences for their convictions of murder in the second degree, and who had been denied parole two or more times, from prerelease facilities to higher security institutions. The plaintiffs contend that the administrative order was invalid because it: (1) constituted a policy of general application that was promulgated in violation of the notice and hearing requirements of G.L. c. 30A (1994 ed.); (2) violated their due process rights under the Federal and State Constitutions; and (3) violated both their statutory rights to equal treatment under G.L. c. 127, § 32 (1994 ed.), and their rights to equal protection under the Federal Constitution. ⁴ A judge of the Superior Court considered cross motions for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motions and allowing the defendants' motion. The plaintiffs appealed, and we transferred the consolidated cases from the Appeals Court to this court on our own motion. We conclude that summary judgment was proper. We vacate the judgment (which simply dismissed all the claims) and order the entry of a declaration of the parties' rights.

The material facts are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows. On February 4, 1991, a new commissioner assumed office and shortly thereafter toured Department of Correction (department) prerelease facilities, where he spoke with various officials and inmates. The commissioner observed that inmates in prerelease facilities were not being directly supervised by department staff, and that there were no physical impediments to prevent an escape by an inmate. He also learned that prerelease facilities held a significant number of inmates who were serving life sentences for convictions of murder in the second degree and who had been denied parole two or more times. After requesting and examining summaries of the files of inmates in this category, the commissioner concluded that these inmates might think they would never receive parole and that they thereby posed a serious risk to safety and security. He also believed that other inmates eligible for prerelease might be better candidates for the limited number of beds in prerelease facilities. On March 11, 1991, the commissioner ordered that all inmates serving life sentences for convictions of murder in the second degree who had been denied parole two or more times be removed from prerelease facilities (with one or two exceptions). The six plaintiffs were subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, at Concord, despite their exemplary institutional and work records and their successful participation in furloughs and community-related activities.

At Concord, each plaintiff was given a separate and individualized reclassification hearing before a five member board at which parole reviews, disciplinary chronology, and other pertinent information was considered. After the hearings, the boards recommended that five of the plaintiffs be returned to their respective prerelease facilities, ⁵ and that the remaining plaintiff be placed in higher security, minimum-security status. ⁶ These recommendations were ultimately reviewed by department officials and the commissioner's representative, who decided to retain all six plaintiffs in higher security status.

A new commissioner was appointed on July 15, 1991, who continued the administrative order in effect unless "extraordinary circumstances" existed that justified an inmate's being kept in, or transferred to, a prerelease facility. A commissioner's representative stated that in some cases inmates have been retained in prerelease or minimum detention facilities despite multiple denials of parole. The present lawsuits followed the events set forth above. ⁷

1. We reject the plaintiffs' argument that their reclassifications are invalid because the administrative order constituted a rule of general application that required compliance with the rulemaking process provided for by G.L. c. 30A. ⁸ "It is a recognized principle of administrative law that an agency may adopt policies through adjudication as well as through rulemaking," Arthurs v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 383 Mass. 299, 312-313, 418 N.E.2d 1236 (1981), and "the choice made between proceeding by general rule or by individual, ad hoc litigation is one that lies primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative agency." Id. at 313, 418 N.E.2d 1236, quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). See A. Cella, Administrative Law and Practice § 752 (1986 & Supp.1996).

The commissioner can permissibly use adjudication to develop agency policy on the subject of inmate classification. The commissioner's statutory obligation to make appropriate classifications is stated in general terms, ⁹ and the commissioner presently discharges that obligation under a regulation that frames broad objectives and seeks to balance security requirements with the programmatic and other needs of inmates. See 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 420.07 (1995). The commissioner has authority to "transfer any sentenced prisoner from one correctional institution of the commonwealth to another." G.L. c. 127, § 97 (1994 ed.). A prisoner cannot harbor a reasonable expectation of remaining at a particular prison, or in a particular custodial setting, so long as prison officials retain discretion to transfer him "for whatever reason or for no reason at all." Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2540, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). See Lanier v. Fair, 876 F.2d 243, 247 (1st Cir.1989).

Considered in this context, the commissioner's administrative order sought to develop a classification policy as to a certain group of inmates which, among other issues, (a) allowed for flexibility in exceptional individual cases; (b) obtained wider use of prerelease facilities; (c) considered security requirements and the risks and dangers of escape; and (d) gathered data needed for possible additional refinements to the policy. Classification questions often demand subtle consideration of an amalgam of elements, some of which are factual, but many of which are subjective, based on knowledge and experience. The commissioner reasonably could issue the order, and eventually take into account the results of expected litigation by affected inmates who would test the application of the order to them through reclassification hearings and review of the results of these hearings. ¹⁰ This is, in substance, an appropriate adjudicatory approach to policymaking by an agency.

2. The plaintiffs argue that their transfers violated their Federal and State constitutional rights to due process. The plaintiffs maintain that a State-created liberty interest arises from the combination of five sources: (1) G.L. c. 124, § 1 (g ), the general statute previously cited, see note 9, supra, which directs the commissioner to determine the custody needs of each inmate and assign or transfer each accordingly; (2) the classification regulation requiring that various procedures be afforded inmates being considered for transfer to higher custody, 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 420.09(3)(a) (1995); (3) community work-release regulations, which require that the commissioner establish outside employment programs for inmates, 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 464.01 (1993), and that a classification committee determine in writing the suitability of inmates for work-release according to certain specified criteria, 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 464.09(1)(B) (1993); and (4) the community release agreements that the plaintiffs signed in order to participate in work-release program. We do not agree with this contention.

(a) The plaintiffs' Federal due process claim is foreclosed by the decisions in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), and Dominique v. Weld, 73 F.3d 1156 (1st Cir.1996). In the Sandin case, the United States Supreme Court expressed concern about its former doctrine, under which courts examined the language in State statutes and regulations to determine whether a liberty interest was created. The doctrine, according to the Court, "encouraged prisoners to comb regulations in search of mandatory language on which to base entitlements to various state-conferred privileges." Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2299. In the Court's view, this approach to inmate litigation created disincentives to the codification of prison management rules and procedures and involved the Federal courts in excessive day-to-day management of prisons. Id.

The Court held that States may still create liberty interests that afford prisoners Federal due process protections, but explained: "[T]hese interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force ... nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life " (emphasis added). Id. at ----, 115...