{"id":2068,"date":"2021-04-05T12:31:37","date_gmt":"2021-04-05T16:31:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/?p=2068"},"modified":"2021-04-05T12:31:37","modified_gmt":"2021-04-05T16:31:37","slug":"plap-team-victorious-at-massachusetts-appeals-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/2021\/04\/05\/plap-team-victorious-at-massachusetts-appeals-court\/","title":{"rendered":"PLAP Team Victorious at Massachusetts Appeals Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 22, s<\/span>tudents<\/span>\u00a0from Harvard PLAP\u00a0<\/span>won a ruling from t<\/span>he Massachusetts Appeals Court<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>that will\u00a0<\/span>improve access to courts for\u00a0<\/span>incarcerated people\u00a0<\/span>challenging<\/span>\u00a0the<\/span>\u00a0disciplin<\/span>e that is meted out against them. The Appeals Court held that the sixty-day statute of limitations for such challenges runs from the date that the Department of Correction<\/span>\u00a0(DOC)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>serves its final decision on a<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>prisoner, not an earlier date of its choosing.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Richard Brooks v. Department of Correction<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff Richard Brooks appealed to the Superior Court from a guilty finding in a prison disciplinary hearing<\/span>\u00a0under a Massachusetts statute that permits judicial review of\u00a0<\/span>such proceedings. The statute calls for<\/span>\u00a0an \u201c<\/span>action in the nature of certiorari<\/span>\u201d to be filed \u201cwithin sixty days next after the proceeding complained of.\u201d M.G.L. c. 249 s. 4<\/a><\/span>. The <\/span>Massachusetts\u00a0<\/span>Department of Correction sought dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the sixty-day clock started to run not w<\/span>hen it issued notice of the disciplinary decision, but\u00a0<\/span>three\u00a0<\/span>days\u00a0<\/span>earlier<\/span>, when the prison superintendent dated her decision. The Superior Court agreed, even though the <\/span>DOC had taken no action on that day to inform anyone of the decision, and even though the agency\u2019s own decision form prominently featured the date of service, in i<\/span>ts headings and in a final line confirming the date of service.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

PLAP students Madeleine\u00a0<\/span>DeMeules<\/span>\u00a0(\u201821)<\/span>, Lena Melillo<\/span>\u00a0(\u201822)<\/span>, and Matthew Disler<\/span>\u00a0(\u201821)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>took charge of the appeal on\u00a0<\/span>Mr. Brooks<\/span>\u2019s behalf<\/span>, supervised by Managing Attorney Joel Thompson<\/span>. They<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>develop<\/span>ed<\/span>\u00a0the arguments and\u00a0<\/span>prepared\u00a0<\/span>the brief\u00a0<\/span>as a team<\/span>\u00a0in the spring of 2020<\/span>, despite having to work remotely<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>during the initial surge<\/span>\u00a0of the COVID-19 pandemi<\/span>c. <\/span>Matthew<\/span>\u00a0Disler<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>argued the appeal<\/span>, after preparing with his fellow team members and\u00a0<\/span>with\u00a0<\/span>the generous assistance\u00a0<\/span>of<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>the\u00a0<\/span>Hon<\/span>orable<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>John Cratsley<\/span>\u00a0(<\/span>R<\/span>et.),\u00a0<\/span>Director of the HLS Judicial Process in Trial Courts Clinic<\/span>, who led a\u00a0<\/span>moot argument.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The PLAP team\u2019s efforts paid off, as the Appeals Court found its arguments persuasive.\u00a0<\/span>The court saw no basis\u00a0<\/span>for<\/span>\u00a0the notion that the statute of limitations should begin to run\u00a0<\/span>before\u00a0<\/span><\/i>the Department of Correction\u00a0<\/span>issues notice of its decision to the\u00a0<\/span>prisoner<\/span>. <\/span>\u201cIndeed, under the department’s rationale, agencies could deprive parties of all opportunity to seek certiorari review through the expedient of waiting for the sixty days to expire before issuing notice<\/span>,<\/span>\u201d<\/span>\u00a0an outcome that the court\u00a0<\/span>found\u00a0<\/span>\u201cillogical.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>The court also noted that<\/span>\u00a0the DOC\u2019s o<\/span>wn\u00a0<\/span>regulation<\/span>\u00a0governing disciplinary proceedings<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>calls for the prison superintendent not only to decide the disciplinary appeal but also to notify the prisoner in writing. <\/span>103 CMR \u00a7 430.18<\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Brooks will now\u00a0<\/span>finally\u00a0<\/span>be heard on the merits of his complaint in the Superior Court.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>DeMeules<\/span>, Melillo, and Disler look forward to<\/span>\u00a0presenting his claim<\/span>:\u00a0<\/span>a challenge\u00a0<\/span>to\u00a0<\/span>the DOC\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>punishment of<\/span>\u00a0M<\/span>r. Brooks for<\/span>\u00a0wearing dark slacks and a white button-down shirt to his religious group\u2019s services<\/span>, an outfit t<\/span>he DOC contends i<\/span>s a\u00a0<\/span>threat to prison security.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On March 22, students\u00a0from Harvard PLAP\u00a0won a ruling from the Massachusetts Appeals Court\u00a0that will\u00a0improve access to courts for\u00a0incarcerated people\u00a0challenging\u00a0the\u00a0discipline that is meted out against them. The Appeals Court held that the sixty-day statute of limitations for such challenges runs from the date that the Department of Correction\u00a0(DOC)\u00a0serves its final decision on a\u00a0prisoner, not an earlier […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11852,"featured_media":2069,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,34,2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-civil-rights","category-constitutional-rights","category-court-decisions","post-preview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11852"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2069"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/plap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}