KING v. GAFFNEY (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction (DOC), brought an action in the nature of certiorari against various DOC officials, alleging that they unlawfully ordered him to pay restitution as a disciplinary sanction. A Superior Court judge allowed the defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that DOC regulations authorized the order of restitution. The plaintiff appeals.

The sanction stemmed from an incident that occurred on July 18, 2017. On that day the plaintiff notified a correction officer that he was suffering from stomach pain. He was escorted to the health services unit, where it was determined that his pain was the result of his having inserted a lotion bottle into his rectum. This required that the plaintiff be taken by ambulance to an outside hospital for treatment. Two correction officers remained with the plaintiff during his treatment.

Based on this incident, the plaintiff was served with a disciplinary report and given a hearing. The hearing officer determined that the plaintiff, unhappy upon being told he had to put in a sick slip to be seen by medical staff, decided to circumvent the process by inserting the lotion bottle into his rectum. The hearing officer found that this constituted “conduct which interferes with the security or orderly running of the institution” and ordered the plaintiff to pay restitution in the amount of $ 2,973.08, which represented the cost of “overtime” for “additional staff members to transport [the plaintiff] to an outside hospital for treatment.”

The plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is that 103 DOC § 763.07 prohibits the DOC from assessing restitution against an inmate who has a mental illness. The plaintiff relies on subsection (2) of that regulation, which provides that “[n]o such assessments or deductions [for the costs of medical treatment] shall be made in instances where injuries were inflicted by an inmate as a result of his mental illness.” 103 DOC § 763.07(2) (2017). Even putting aside that there is no evidence in the administrative record that the plaintiff suffers from a mental illness, his argument fails because the hearing officer ordered restitution not for the costs of medical treatment, but for the costs of overtime salaries necessitated by the need to transport the plaintiff to an outside hospital. That order was authorized by subsection (5) of the regulation, which states that “[n]othing in this provision shall preclude a separate sanction of restitution from the inmate ․ for any incidental costs related to the injuries (e.g. overtime salaries for hospital coverage by correction officers, etc.).” 103 DOC § 763.07(5) (2017). The plaintiff raises no claim that subsection (5) was unlawfully promulgated or that his disciplinary hearing did not comport with due process; he has thus failed to demonstrate entitlement to certiorari relief. See Ciampi v. Commissioner of Correction, 452 Mass. 162, 163 (2008) (“restitution as a disciplinary sanction is a part of the [DOC's] broad grant of statutory authority to maintain prison discipline”); id. at 169-171 (seizure of funds from inmate's account did not unlawfully deprive him of protected property interest where he received due process through disciplinary hearing and appeal). Cf. Cepulonis v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1998) (upholding restitution order of $ 10,774 for costs associated with inmate's escape from prison).

Judgment affirmed.

Order denying motion for relief from judgment affirmed.