Opinion
15-P-1050
08-08-2016
RAMON D. WALKER v. KATY L. CARSON & others.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Ramon D. Walker, an inmate confined at Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord (MCI-Concord), appeals from a Superior Court judgment dismissing his claims against the defendant prison officials in connection with disciplinary proceedings against him. Claiming lack of substantial evidence, the plaintiff asserts that the hearing officer erred in finding him guilty of possessing a sharpened instrument and that the judge erred in denying relief in the nature of certiorari. We affirm.
Background. On December 14, 2013, defendant Torri Jordan and another correction officer searched the plaintiff's cell at MCI-Concord. During the search, Jordan recovered a piece of metal, approximately five and one-half inches in length, sharpened to a point. The plaintiff was placed in segregation and informed that a disciplinary report would be issued. The report charged the plaintiff with three violations of the Department of Correction code of offenses: possession of a weapon, sharpened instrument, or any component thereof; receipt or possession of contraband; and violating a departmental rule or regulation.
On December 30, 2013, defendant Katy L. Carson conducted a disciplinary hearing on the charges against the plaintiff. The evidence before the hearing officer included Jordan's disciplinary report and a written statement submitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted that he knew the sharpened metal item was in the cell, but he denied ownership of the item. He contended that he shared the cell with another inmate; that the item was stuck on a bulletin board in the common area of the cell in plain view with two other pieces of metal, one of which was holding a hat; and that the item was already there when he was moved into the cell two weeks prior.
The hearing officer found the defendant guilty of possession of a sharpened instrument, dismissed the other charges as duplicative, and imposed a sanction of fifteen days of disciplinary detention and loss of canteen privileges, with credit for time served. Defendant Superintendent Michael Thompson denied the plaintiff's administrative appeal.
Discussion. "The results of department disciplinary proceedings are to be reviewed under G. L. c. 249, § 4, to allow a court to 'correct only a substantial error of law, evidenced by the record, which adversely affects a material right of the plaintiff.'" Santiago v. Russo, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 613 (2010), quoting from Sheriff of Plymouth County v. Plymouth County Personnel Bd., 440 Mass. 708, 710 (2004). "Review is confined to the administrative record of the proceedings, which viewed in its entirety must demonstrate substantial evidence of the plaintiff's guilt under a preponderance of the evidence standard." Santiago, supra at 613-614. "Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, . . . taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence." Jordan v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 584, 587 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The hearing officer's findings and determinations of credibility are final and may not be set aside by the reviewing court unless there appears no basis for them in the record." Santiago, supra at 614, citing Durbin v. Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 6 (2004).
The evidence before the hearing officer adequately supports the finding of guilty. In her decision, Carson articulated numerous independent reasons for finding the plaintiff guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. See 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.06(1) (2006). The evidence supporting the decision "include[d] the reporting officer's written statement in the disciplinary report which is taken as true, per 103 [Code Mass. Regs. §] 430.14(5). It is determined to be a credible documentation of the officer's eyewitness account of the incident in which he recovered a pick type weapon from within the inmate's cell." In addition, Carson relied on the photograph of the item and the plaintiff's written and oral testimony in which he admitted knowing that the item was in a common area of his cell the entire time he occupied the cell. Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the hearing officer, and a reviewing court may not substitute its own view of the case. Cepulonis v. Commissioner of Correction, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 292, 295 (1983). The evidence considered by the hearing officer meets the standard of that which "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" of possession of a sharpened instrument by the plaintiff. Jordan, supra. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 554, 556 (1991) (possession may be proved exclusively by circumstantial evidence). We discern no error.,
The plaintiff's allegations concerning the cellmate's successful appeal of disciplinary charges for the same incident are not properly before this panel. "Review is confined to the administrative record of the proceedings." Santiago, 77 Mass. App. Ct. at 613-614. The plaintiff's cellmate's affidavit, appended to the plaintiff's brief, is not a part of the record. Thus, we do not consider this claim.
The plaintiff's request for costs is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Massing & Neyman, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: August 8, 2016.