In this case brought by incarcerated individuals challenging the conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the parole board's motion to dismiss only with respect to the claims of the individuals civilly committed and allowed the Governor's motion to dismiss, holding that the Governor was not liable under the facts alleged.The complaint alleged that by confining Plaintiffs under conditions that put them in grave and imminent danger of contracting the COVID-19 virus and by failing to reduce the incarcerated population, Defendants were violating Plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and their right to substantive due process. Further, Plaintiffs alleged that confining persons who have been civilly committed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, 35 in correction facilities violates the individuals' rights to substantive due process. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) granted the Governor's motion to dismiss, holding that the Governor's presence was not necessary to provide any relief that a court may order in this case; and (2) allowed the parole board's motion to dismiss only with respect to the claims of individuals civilly committed, holding that if Plaintiffs' constitutional claims were to prevail, the parole board would be a logical and necessary party to accomplish a reasonable remedial process. View "Foster v. Commissioner of Correction (No. 2)" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Correction (DOC) from housing prisoners in facilities where the population exceeds its design-rated capacity and from housing prisoners areas where they must live within six feet of another person, holding that, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim for violations of the Eighth Amendment.Plaintiffs, incarcerated inmates serving sentences or individuals who were civilly committed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, 35, commenced a class action alleging that their conditions of confinement exposed them to unreasonable risks from the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' failure to take steps to reduce the incarcerated population so as to permit adequate physical distancing constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violated substantive due process requirements. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in their claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement because of the risk of a disease. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the motion, holding that Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The Court then transferred the case to the superior court for a final adjudication on the merits. View "Foster v. Commissioner of Correction (No. 1)" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing as moot Petitioner's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not abuse her discretion.Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life in prison. While he was still in prison, Petitioner filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition asking the Supreme Judicial Court to order his release because the Department of Correction allegedly failed in its duty to timely release him after granting him medical parole. While Petitioner's petition was pending, Petitioner was released. The single justice thereafter dismissed the petition as moot. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not abuse her discretion in not addressing the substantive merits of Petitioner's petition. View "Vazquez v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Plaintiffs' complaint for relief in the nature of mandamus and for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice correctly denied relief on all of Plaintiffs' claims.Each plaintiff is or was a defendant in a post-foreclosure summary process action. After an adverse judgment, each plaintiff was required to post an appeal bond or to make periodic use and occupancy payments during the pendency of each plaintiff's summary process appeal. The appellate division affirmed the bond or use and occupancy order in each case. Plaintiffs then collectively filed this complaint for relief in the nature of mandamus and for extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from the bond and use and occupancy orders. The single justice denied all substantive relief sought. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs did not demonstrate the absence of an adequate and effective alternative remedy. View "Bigelow v. Massachusetts Courts Promulgator of Official Forms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner sought interlocutory review of an order of the district court denying her motion for summary judgment in an action for damages under the Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148, 150, arguing that relief was warranted because the motion judgment violated Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 in denying her summary judgment motion and in failing to comply with Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, Petitioner did not meet the requirement of S.J.C. Rule 2:21(2). View "Lavoie v. Justice of the District Court Department" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of a single justice of the court treating Petitioner's requests for declaratory, injunctive, and other relief concerning certain inmate mail regulations as a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and denying relief, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Petitioner's memorandum filed pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, did nothing to establish the inadequacy of the ordinary process of trial and appeal; and (2) the single justice acted within her discretion in concluding that there was no reason to exercise the court's extraordinary authority to grant the preliminary injunction or otherwise grant the relief requested by Petitioner in the first instance. View "Snell v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institute, Shirley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking review of a Housing Court judge's order denying his motion for waiver of an appeal bond, setting the bond, and ordering payment of use and occupancy during the pendency of Petitioner's appeal from an adverse summary process judgment, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion.Petitioner sought and received review of the Housing Court judge's order from a single justice of the Appeals Court. In challenging the order, Petitioner neither appealed to the Appeals Court from the dismissal of his summary process appeal, nor did he raise his claims concerning the bond and the use and occupancy payments in the direct appeal from the summary process judgment in the Appeals Court. Because Petitioner had other adequate and effective routes to seek relief, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the single justice properly denied relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Perry v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this matter to the county court for entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General's decision to certify Initiative Petition 19-14, entitled "An Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to the Sale of Beer and Wine by Food Stores," was in compliance with the requirements of art. 48, The Initiative, II, 2 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.After the initiative petition was submitted to the Attorney General, the Attorney General certified to the Secretary of the Commonwealth that Initiative Petition 19-14 was in proper form for submission to the people. Seven registered voters of the Commonwealth subsequently commenced an action in the county court challenging the certification of the initiative petition. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Initiative Petition 19-14 complied with article 48 because it neither contained unrelated subjects nor included a specific appropriation. View "Weiner v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Defendant's statements made to his doctors before and after the murder regarding his mental health were not admissible for their truth.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in ruling that Defendant's statements to two doctors about his mental health were not admissible substantively and that the judge's instruction to the jury that they could not consider such statements for the truth of the matter was incorrect as a matter of law. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the judge did not err in ruling that the statements Defendant made to the doctors were not admissible for the truth of the matter or in instructing the jury to that effect; and (2) there was no reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce or set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing John Doe's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, relief in the nature of mandamus, equitable relief, and extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief of the obligation to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board (Board), holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.In denying Doe's request to be relieved of the obligation to register with the Board, the single justice noted that Doe had an adequate alternative avenue to obtain relief by way of a request to the Board to be terminated and to have an evidentiary hearing where he may be represented counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly denied relief. View "Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 21634 v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law