ERVIN TRIPLETT JR v. DEAN GRAY (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Ervin Triplett, Jr., who was at all relevant times an inmate at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, appeals from a judgment dismissing his claims against the defendants. Because that judgment failed to account for an earlier order granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his claim for declaratory judgment, we vacate so much of the final judgment as is inconsistent with the earlier order and remand the case for the entry of a corrected judgment consistent with this memorandum and order.

Discussion. In 2018, relying on 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 481.12(2) (2017) (2017 regulation), the Department of Corrections (DOC) implemented a standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding the handling of certain inmate mail. As pertinent to our analysis, the SOP provided that “all incoming nonprivileged inmate mail shall be photocopied prior to distribution to the inmate,” with inmates receiving either a photocopy or an electronic copy of the photocopy. It is not disputed that the DOC enforced the provisions of the SOP on the plaintiff.

Later that year, another inmate, Edward G. Wright, brought suit in the Superior Court challenging the DOC's adoption of the SOP. In 2020, a judge (first judge) granted summary judgment for Wright in that case, concluding that the SOP violated the 2017 regulation and was itself a regulation that could be issued only in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), G. L. c. 30A, § 2. The judgment and any injunctive relief associated with it were ultimately stayed to allow the DOC to promulgate an APA-compliant regulation, which it did on November 25, 2022. See 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 481.12 (2022).

Meanwhile, in 2022, the plaintiff brought an action in the Superior Court seeking declaratory judgment and sanctions for contempt predicated on the first judge's determination in Wright's case that the SOP was unlawful. See G. L. c. 231A, § 5. In December 2023, a judge (second judge) granted partial summary judgment in this case in favor of the plaintiff. Specifically, the second judge ruled that, although the defendants’ ongoing application of the SOP could not constitute contempt of the summary judgment order from Wright's case because the first judge had stayed that order, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaratory judgment that “the defendants acted unlawfully in delivering only photocopies of inmates’ mail at least through November 25, 2022.” As relief, the second judge ordered the defendants to “provide the plaintiff with access to his original non-privileged mail, to the extent such mail has been retained.” The defendants did so.³

The parties continued to litigate this case until 2024, when the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.⁴ In that motion, the defendants apparently sought dismissal of all claims, and their argument did not acknowledge the partial summary judgment ordered by the second judge. The plaintiff opposed the motion, highlighting his success in obtaining partial summary judgment on his declaratory judgment order, but after a hearing, a third Superior Court judge (third judge) allowed the defendants’ motion “for reasons stated in the Defendants’ Memorandum of Law.”⁵ The third judge's endorsement allowing the motion neither referred in any way to the order of the second judge granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff nor suggested that the third judge was intentionally revising the earlier order. Cf. Alberti v. Alberti, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 235, 237-238 (2024) (order for partial summary judgment is “interlocutory in nature, subject to revision at any time by the trial court prior to the entry of a judgment disposing of all claims” [citation omitted]). The plaintiff appealed from the judgment dismissing his complaint.

We do not discern any basis on which to conclude that the third judge reconsidered the second judge's grant of partial summary judgment. See Alberti, 104 Mass. App. Ct. at 237-238. Additionally, we do not agree that the defendants’ compliance with the second judge's order -- in that they provided the plaintiff with access to the retained originals of his unlawfully withheld mail -- provides a basis for dismissing his claims. See Gibson v. Department of Correction, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 201, 206-207 (2025) (inmate's challenge to DOC regulation was not moot where, notwithstanding DOC's provision of disputed documents to inmate, parties continued to dispute propriety of DOC's failure to do so upon initial demand). Accordingly, we vacate so much of the judgment as dismissed the plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment and remand the case to the Superior Court for entry of a corrected judgment. We need not and do not consider any of the other arguments the plaintiff raises in his appeal.⁶

Conclusion. So much of the judgment as dismissed the plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his claim for declaratory judgment. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

So ordered.

FOOTNOTES

3.   At oral argument, the plaintiff confirmed that he had been provided access to all such mail that the defendants were able to locate, although he was required to choose the original documents he wished to retain.

4.   That motion was the defendants’ second motion to dismiss. The second judge had denied the defendants’ first motion.

5.   These included the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiff's claims were moot; that the defendants did not disobey any “clear and unequivocal command”; that to the extent that the plaintiff had stated a constitutional claim, none of his rights had been violated, and moreover, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from such claims; that the plaintiff had no individual cause of action under the APA; and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his complaint.

6.   At oral argument, the plaintiff clarified that, at this point, the only relief that he seeks is a correction of the judgment to reflect the second judge's grant of partial summary judgment in his favor.