McGuiness v. Duboise ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion












    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


    ____________________


    No. 93-2048
    No. 94-1142

    BRENDAN MCGUINNESS,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    LARRY E. DUBOIS, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.


    ____________________

    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Brendan M. McGuinness on brief pro se.
    _____________________
    Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
    ____________________
    Rosemary Ford, on briefs for appellees.
    _____________


    ____________________

    May 11, 1994
    ____________________



















    Per Curiam. The plaintiff, Brendan McGuinness, an
    ___________

    inmate at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar

    Junction, filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,

    against eight prison administrators and officers. McGuinness

    has appealed a district court order granting summary judgment

    in favor of the defendants and denying his request for a

    preliminary injunction. We affirm.1

    I.

    We review the grant of summary judgment de novo,

    employing the same standards as is required of the district

    court, Webb v. Internal Revenue Serv., 15 F.3d 203, 205 (1st
    ____ ______________________

    Cir. 1994), and mindful of our duty to review the record in

    the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Shinberg v.
    ________

    Bruk, 875 F.2d 973, 974 (1st Cir. 1989).
    ____

    A motion for summary judgment must be
    granted if "there is no genuine issue as
    to any material fact and ... the moving
    party is entitled to a judgment as a
    matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
    To succeed, the moving party must show
    that there is an absence of evidence to
    support the nonmoving party's position.
    Having done so, the burden shifts to the
    nonmoving party to establish the
    existence of an issue of fact that could
    affect the outcome of the litigation and
    from which a reasonable jury could find
    for the opponent. It is settled that the
    nonmovant may not rest upon mere
    allegations, but must adduce specific,


    ____________________

    1. Our affirmance of the grant of summary judgment
    necessarily is an affirmance of the denial of the preliminary
    injunction request. We, therefore, do not address separately
    the preliminary injunction issue.

    -2-















    provable facts demonstrating that there
    is a triable issue. There must be
    sufficient evidence favoring the
    nonmoving party for a jury to return a
    verdict for that party. If the evidence
    is merely colorable or is not
    significantly probative, summary judgment
    may be granted.

    Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir. 1990) (internal
    ______ ____

    quotations and citations omitted).

    II.

    In February 1992, McGuinness admitted to attempting to

    flush his sweatshirt down the toilet in his cell. He was

    found guilty of three disciplinary offenses2 with respect to

    this incident. McGuinness' institutional folder was then

    reviewed. He had had 44 disciplinary reports in two years,

    including six assaults on staff, four violations for

    possession of a weapon, and two drug-related offenses. At

    the time of the flushing incident, McGuinness was in the

    prison's Departmental Segregation Unit (DSU) for assaulting a

    staff member. After reciting this, the hearing officer

    stated:

    [t]his inmate exhibits assaultive along
    with disruptive behavior both in general
    population and segregation. The conduct
    that the inmate has displayed makes him a
    viable candidate for DDU. This type of


    ____________________

    2. 103 CMR 430.24(3): Failure to keep one's person or one's
    quarters in accordance with institutional rules; 103 CMR
    430.24(8): Conduct which disrupts or interferes with the
    security or orderly running of the institution; 103 CMR
    430.24(22): Willfully destroying or damaging state property
    or the property of another person.

    -3-















    defiant behavior, along with total
    disregard for the rules and regulations
    of the institution is unacceptable and
    will not be tolerated.

    Supplementary Record Appendix, No. 94-1142, ("SRA") at p. 20.

    McGuinness was given a sanction of six months in the prison's

    Departmental Disciplinary Unit (DDU).3 According to the

    affidavit of defendant Larry E. DuBois, the Commissioner of

    the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC), the DDU

    has a maximum capacity of 121 inmates and is reserved for

    violent inmates and/or those with severe disciplinary

    problems. SRA at pp. 116-19.

    A.

    McGuinness filed a 1983 action against several prison

    officials claiming that conditions in the DDU violated

    provisions which grew out of state court litigation, Hoffer
    ______

    v. Fair, Supreme Judicial Court, No. 85-71. Hoffer was a
    ____ ______

    class action challenging regulations pertaining to, and

    conditions in, the prison's DSU. As we understand it, the

    DSU is for administrative segregation and an inmate typically

    is housed in the DSU because he is believed to pose a threat



    ____________________

    3. According to the defendants, McGuinness served his six
    month DDU sentence for the flushing incident from May to
    November 1992. He was released from the unit, but upon being
    found guilty of an assault, he received a second six month
    term in the DDU and began serving this term in February 1993.
    Presently, according to the defendants, McGuinness is serving
    yet a third six month period in the DDU, as a result of
    another assault. SRA at p. 128; Defendants' brief, Appeal
    No. 94-1142, at p.2 n.1.

    -4-















    to security.4 When that threat has dissipated, an inmate

    ought to be released back into the general prison population.

    The result of the Hoffer litigation was promulgation of
    ______

    revised regulations, including those pertaining to the review

    and release of an inmate after DSU placement. The revised

    regulations provide for periodic hearings to review an

    inmate's DSU classification and written guidance to an inmate

    regarding what he might do to shorten his DSU term. See 103
    ___

    CMR 421.15(2)(c); 103 CMR 421.19(2)(a) (effective 12/15/89).

    The revised regulations also provide for an expanded range of

    activities and privileges than previously permitted to DSU

    inmates, such as access to educational and rehabilitative

    programs. 103 CMR 421.21 (effective 12/15/89).

    While the Hoffer litigation was pending in the state
    ______

    court, Commissioner DuBois instituted the DDU as a new unit


    ____________________

    4. An inmate may be placed or retained
    in a DSU only after a finding by the
    Commissioner based on substantial
    evidence that, if confined in the general
    population of any state correctional
    facility:

    (1) The inmate poses a substantial
    threat to the safety of others; or

    (2) The inmate poses a substantial
    threat of damaging or destroying
    property; or

    (3) The inmate poses a substantial
    threat to the operation of a state
    correctional facility.

    103 CMR 421.09 (effective 12/15/89).

    -5-















    for disciplinary segregation.5 A sentence to a period of

    confinement in the DDU is not subject to periodic review.

    Inmates in the DDU are not provided access to educational

    programs. McGuinness' 1983 suit charges that the new DDU

    unit is merely the pre-Hoffer DSU by another name. He
    ______

    claimed that the improvements in the conditions and programs

    in the DSU brought about through the Hoffer litigation, in
    ______

    particular, periodic classification review and access to

    rehabilitative programs, are applicable to the DDU and that

    the defendants have failed to provide him with those.

    Like the district court, however, we conclude that

    summary judgment in favor of the defendants is warranted on

    this claim. The record is clear that the DSU, which was the

    subject of the Hoffer litigation, and the DDU are separate
    ______

    units, used for distinct purposes. Apart from Commissioner

    DuBois' affidavit, the defendants submitted a copy of an

    April 1992 court order in the Hoffer litigation, in which the
    ______

    state court declined to enjoin the Commissioner from

    operating the DDU. It is true that the denial of the

    injunction was without prejudice, in the event that the

    Hoffer plaintiffs could further develop their factual claim
    ______

    regarding the relationship between the DDU and the DSU. SRA


    ____________________

    5. According to DuBois' affidavit, he directed that the
    Department's regulations be amended on an emergency basis so
    as to deal with what he viewed to be an emergency situation.
    The amended regulations with respect to disciplinary
    segregation went into effect on January 22, 1992.

    -6-















    at pp. 122-23. McGuinness has presented nothing, however,

    indicating that the Hoffer plaintiffs subsequently have been
    ______

    successful in this claim.

    Moreover, McGuinness has not suggested why it is

    unlawful, per se, to treat an inmate in administrative

    segregation differently from an inmate in disciplinary

    segregation. We need not, and therefore do not purport to,

    determine whether the conditions in the DDU comply with the

    Federal Constitution, but we note that the reasons provided

    by the defendants for the distinct treatment appear

    reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. See
    ___

    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (announcing the
    ______ ______

    standard for determining the validity of prison regulations

    which impinge on inmates' constitutional rights). A DDU term

    punishes "the most dangerous and repetitive kind of conduct,"

    while the "DSU remains a place to house and control inmates

    who pose a danger to themselves or to others but for one

    reason or another may not be amenable to punishment and for

    whom the DDU would serve no penological purpose." DuBois

    affidavit at p. 4.

    Because, presumably, an inmate in administrative

    segregation may be entitled to release from that type of

    segregation when the reasons for its implementation, for

    example, a threat to security, have dissipated and his

    behavior in the DSU warrants his release to the general



    -7-















    population, it is reasonable to require that a DSU inmate

    have the possibility of obtaining, and the means to obtain,

    that release through periodic classification review hearing

    and access to rehabilitative programs. By contrast, a DDU

    inmate is being sanctioned for violent or severe disciplinary

    problems by a fixed period of a more severe level of

    incarceration. As there is no entitlement to early release

    from the DDU, there would appear no need for the periodic

    classification review hearing nor have we been pointed to

    authority for the proposition that prison officials may not

    sanction an inmate by withdrawing educational programs during

    his placement in higher security.

    We further remark that the Hoffer court, itself, in
    ______

    addressing the conditions in administrative segregation,

    noted "the necessity of distinctions from the treatment of

    those confined for disciplinary violations and those confined

    solely for administrative reasons." Hoffer v. Fair, Supreme
    ______ ____

    Judicial Court, No. 85-71, Memorandum, Order and Judgment #17

    (Sept. 19, 1989), SRA at p. 76. Suffice it to say that

    summary judgment for the defendants was warranted on

    McGuinness' claim that conditions in the DDU violated the

    state court's rulings in the Hoffer litigation.
    ______

    B.

    McGuinness' second contention is that his access to the

    law library or its materials, while confined to the DDU,



    -8-















    fails to comply with a "stipulation of dismissal" entered

    into in the Massachusetts federal district court case of

    Cepulonis v. Fair, No. 78-3233-Z. The parties in Cepulonis
    _________ ____ _________

    stipulated that the DOC would maintain a satellite law

    library in the DSU with a designated list of particular

    lawbooks. The stipulation also contained provisions for

    requesting access to the satellite library, access to the

    main prison library or to material available there but not in

    the satellite library, and provisions regarding library

    hours. The short answer is that the Cepulonis suit was a
    _________

    class action concerning law library access of inmates housed

    in the DSU. It did not speak to the DDU which, we recognize,
    ___

    had not yet been created. But, by the same token, an alleged

    failure to comply with the stipulation in Cepulonis (which
    _________

    addresses the DSU) may be a questionable thread on which to

    hang a claim regarding the contours of the entitlement of the

    law library access in the DDU.

    The record indicates that an inmate in the DDU is

    permitted a minimum of two hours access per week to a book

    cart with a selection of starter volumes6; may request from


    ____________________

    6. According to the affidavit of defendant Ronald T. Duval,
    the Superintendent of MCI Cedar Junction, these include the
    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court
    for the District of Massachusetts, the Federal Practice
    Digest on Prisons, Constitutional Law, and Criminal Law, the
    Massachusetts Rules of Court, the Massachusetts Practice
    volumes on Criminal Practice and Procedure and Criminal Law,
    Massachusetts Criminal Law and Procedure, Cohen, How to Find
    ___________

    -9-















    the prison's law librarian any legal materials, up to six

    items at one time, including legal research material in the

    prison's main law library which is not available in the DDU,

    which the inmate identifies, either by name or general topic;

    and may retain loaned legal material in his cell provided

    that it does not exceed the one cubic foot maximum level.7

    We do not purport to resolve here (because it is not squarely

    presented) whether these provisions for law library access

    while in the DDU suffice to meet any constitutional threshold

    for access to the courts.8 We conclude only that the

    defendants were entitled to summary judgment on McGuinness'

    claim that the provisions for law library access, while in

    the DDU, violate the stipulation entered into in the

    Cepulonis case regarding the DSU.
    _________






    ____________________

    the Law, Gobert and Cohen, Rights of Prisoners, and Black's
    _______ ___________________
    Law Dictionary. SRA at p. 127.

    7. According to Duval's affidavit, DDU inmates also have the
    opportunity to retain and consult with outside, licensed
    counsel, both in person and by telephone.

    8. To succeed on a claim of denial of a constitutional right
    of access to courts, a prisoner may be required to show an
    "actual injury" to his ability to participate meaningfully in
    the legal process, unless the deprivation is so significant
    as to constitute an injury in and of itself. Sowell v. Vose,
    ______ ____
    941 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam). A challenge
    to the basic adequacy of available materials may typify a
    classic allegation of inherent prejudice, but not every
    restriction on access to a prison law library is an
    inherently injurious act. Id. at 34.
    ___

    -10-















    C.

    McGuinness' third claim was that 103 CMR 430.25(3)(d)9

    which authorizes, as a disciplinary sanction, a sentence to

    the DDU for a period of up to ten years impermissibly

    conflicts with Mass. Gen. L. ch. 127, 40. That statute

    reads:

    For the enforcement of discipline,
    an inmate in any correctional institution
    of the commonwealth may, at the
    discretion of its superintendent, be
    confined, for a period not to exceed
    fifteen days for any one offence, to an
    isolation unit.
    Such isolation units must provide
    light, ventilation and adequate sanitary
    facilities, may contain a minimum of
    furniture, and shall provide at least one
    full meal daily.





    ____________________

    9. The applicable regulations regarding disciplinary
    proceedings authorize the following sanctions for "major"
    matters:
    (a) Isolation, for a specified period of
    time not to exceed 15 days for one
    offense, and no more than 30 days for all
    violations arising out of one incident.

    (b) Recommended good time forfeiture.

    (c) All minor sanctions.

    (d) Sentence to a Department
    Disciplinary Unit for a period not
    exceeding 10 years. An inmate shall be
    credited for time served on a monthly
    basis except when an inmate fails to
    attend his monthly review or is found
    guilty of a disciplinary offense.

    103 CMR 430.25(3) (4/10/92).

    -11-















    McGuinness' contention is that a sentence to the DDU is a

    sentence to an isolation unit.

    The statute does not define an isolation unit beyond one

    which must provide "light, ventilation and adequate sanitary

    facilities, may contain a minimum of furniture, and shall

    provide at least one full meal daily." Mass. Gen. L. ch.

    127, 40. The prison regulations do not further define an

    isolation unit.

    The record, however, evidences that the two are not the

    same. The disciplinary proceeding regulations, themselves,

    treat the two as distinct. The authorized sanctions for

    commission of a disciplinary offense designated as a "major"

    matter include isolation and/or a sentence to the DDU. See
    ___



























    -12-















    supra note 9.10 According to defendant Michael T. Maloney,
    _____

    Deputy Commissioner of the Massachusetts DOC:

    The conditions in the DDU are not as
    severe as those that prevail in an
    "isolation unit" in the Massachusetts
    Department of Correction.
    An inmate in isolation is never
    allowed a television or radio. For
    fifteen days at a time, he is deprived of
    all out-of-cell activity and deprived of
    all outside contact or stimulus with the
    exception of a Bible or other holy book.
    By contrast, DDU inmates can
    communicate with other inmates one hour
    per day, five hours per week during their
    exercise periods. Pending good behavior,
    they can have telephone calls, visits and
    a television and radio.

    SRA at pp. 124-25; see also SRA at p. 37.
    ________

    McGuinness counters by arguing that, at the very least,

    the conditions imposed for the first 30 days of a DDU term

    violate Mass. Gen. L. ch. 127, 40, which limits confinement


    ____________________

    10. Those regulations further provide:

    The Superintendent shall designate
    such person or persons as he deems
    appropriate to review the status of
    inmates housed in isolation on a weekly
    basis. No inmate shall be retained in
    isolation continuously for more than 15
    days for any one violation. No more than
    30 days isolation shall be imposed on an
    inmate for all violations arising out of
    the same or substantially connected
    incident(s), unless specifically
    authorized by the Commissioner. No
    inmate shall, at any given time, be
    facing more than 30 days of closed solid
    door isolation time, unless specifically
    authorized by the Commissioner.

    103 CMR 430.22(2) (4/10/92).

    -13-















    to an isolation unit to "fifteen days for any one

    offence."11 According to the DDU Orientation Manual, SRA

    at pp. 28-40, for the first 30 days in the DDU, an inmate is

    not allowed a radio, visitors, or access to a telephone.

    These privileges may be earned after an inmate has completed

    30 days free of disciplinary sanctions. SRA at p. 33. After

    60 consecutive days of "disciplinary report free behavior," a

    DDU inmate is permitted a television and additional visiting

    and telephone periods. SRA at. 33-34. If, however, an

    inmate engages in conduct resulting in disciplinary





    ____________________

    11. Caselaw tells us that
    [b]y order of the [DOC] Commissioner, no
    more than thirty days of isolation may be
    imposed as a result of a single incident
    regardless of how many separate offenses
    were involved. [We note, for example,
    that, with respect to the "flushing"
    incident, McGuinness was found guilty of
    three separate prison offenses. See
    ___
    supra note 2.] Also by order of the
    Commissioner, at no time shall any inmate
    be facing accumulated isolation sanctions
    of more than thirty days even when
    numerous infractions have been committed.
    If two fifteen-day isolation sanctions
    are to be served, the inmate is removed
    from isolation for twenty-four hours
    between the two periods. During this
    twenty-four-hour break the solid door is
    left open and the inmate is accorded the
    privileges enjoyed by inmates not serving
    isolation time, including visits and
    exercise.

    Libby v. Commissioner of Correction, 385 Mass. 421, 425
    _____ ___________________________
    (1982).

    -14-















    sanctions, he loses privileges and a new 30 day adjustment

    period is begun. SRA at p. 33.

    Although these conditions may be "isolating," we do not

    think the record supports the conclusion that the first 30

    days of a DDU confinement is a confinement to an "isolation"

    unit in violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 127, 40. A DDU

    inmate, even during the initial 30 days of his DDU

    confinement, has a one hour per day, five days per week, out-

    of-cell exercise period during which he can communicate with

    other inmates. SRA at p. 37; pp. 124-25. In contrast to an

    inmate in an isolation unit, who is deprived of reading

    material except for a Bible or other holy book, a DDU inmate

    is permitted four personal or library paperback books,

    newspapers or magazines in any combination. Two books may be

    borrowed from the library cart at any one time. SRA at p.

    37. A DDU inmate is permitted access to the "DDU [Legal]

    Research Area," whereas an inmate in isolation "will not

    normally be allowed Research Area access." SRA at p. 38-40.

    The district court did not err in granting summary judgment

    to the defendants on McGuinness' claim that a sentence to the

    DDU is a sentence to an isolation unit.

    III.

    The order of the district court granting summary

    judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed.
    _________





    -15-