Case: Foster v. Commissioner of Corrections

On April 20, 2020, prisoners incarcerated in Massachusetts correctional facilities filed this class-action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC), the chair of the Parole Board, and the Governor. The prisoners, represented by Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, sued on behalf of all prisoners incarcerated in Massachusetts prisons and jails, included two subclasses: (1) all prisoners who are at high risk for serious complication or death from COVID-19 due to underlying medical condition or age, and (2) all prisoners civilly committed to a correctional facility for treatment of an alcohol or substance use disorder. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; they also alleged violations of the Massachusetts Constitution. They brought the case before Judge Elspeth Cypher of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court before proceeding before the full court.

The plaintiffs sought attorneys' fees and injunctive relief ordering the defendants to release putative class-members in order to achieve social distancing within the facilities. Concurrently, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief seeking the release of class members. The plaintiffs alleged that the state failed to enable social distancing in correctional facilities because the prisons and jails do not have the requisite space to comply with CDC-recommended guidelines. Additionally, the facilities were allegedly "filthy and unsanitary," further exacerbating the risk of disease spread. While the plaintiffs sought release of all class members to enable adequate social distancing, those with underlying medical conditions or old age were particularly vulnerable to severe complications if they contracted COVID-19.

The state officials filed a motion to dismiss on April 24, 2020. Oral argument was heard before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on May 7. The plaintiffs noted that 358 Massachusetts inmates had already tested positive for COVID-19 and articulated their request for population reduction, although they could not provide an exact number that would achieve the social distancing guidelines. The defendants, meanwhile, argued that they had already taken steps to limit the disease's spread and would continue to monitor the situation. Additionally, the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claim alleged that incarceration for substance abuse during COVID-19 violated substantive due process rights and did not advance the legislative goal of treatment.

On June 2, 2020, the Supreme Judicial Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary relief. 484 Mass. 698 (2020). In an opinion written by Judge Gaziano, the Court noted the steps taken by the corrections facilities already including increased emphasis on sanitation, physical distancing where possible, testing, and quarantining. With regards to the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim, the Court found that the objective component was satisfied, but said that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the subjective component of the test for liability--deliberate indifference-- because the plaintiffs could not identify how the correctional facilities were not in compliance with CDC interim guidelines for prisons and jails. Regarding the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court found that the "significant steps" taken to lessen the risk of transmissions were sufficient to preclude a finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. However, the Court did acknowledge that continued incarceration for substance abuse was questionable given pandemic. Therefore, the Court ordered that any individual who is committed pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 35 (Commitment of alcoholics or substance abusers) may file a motion for reconsideration of the commitment order. The Court did not decide whether class certification should be granted, but rather remanded the issue to the Superior Court for resolution.

The same day, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. 484 Mass. 1059 (2020). The Court granted the Governor's motion to dismiss, finding that the Governor could not be held liable for things he had not done, and determining that the Court could not order the Court to utilize his emergency powers. The Court dismissed the claims against the parole board that related to the commitment of alcoholics and substance abusers, but denied the motion to dismiss for other claims against the parole board. The Court noted that, if the parole board failed to exercise its statutory authority to remedy a constitutional violation, the Court had power to order such action.

On June 19, the Governor, one of the defendants, filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case against him. On the same date, the Superior Court (Judge Robert L. Ullmann) granted the motion and dismissed the case against the Governor.

On August 26, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. After several hearings, on November 12, the Superior Court granted a motion and certified a class of all Massachusetts prisoners confined at the Department of DOC facilities, and subclass of all such prisoners who are age 50 or older and/or have one or more medical conditions that have been determined to increase one’s vulnerability to COVID-19. 

On October 30, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to require the Commissioner to establish a Home Confinement Program that would allow certain prisoners to serve a portion of their sentence outside of DOC facilities to reduce the population within those facilities. The Superior Court denied the motion on December 18, stating that the Commissioner has no statutory obligation to make a home confinement program.

On December 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed the second motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to reduce the population in the DOC facilities to a level where social distancing was possible. The Superior Court denied the motion on February 17, 2021, ruling that the protective measures DOC had put in place meant it was not deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of people in custody. The Court did not rule on the plaintiffs’ claims that DOJ’s failure to consider releasing prisoners violated the decarceration law, but allowed them to amend the complaint to assert that claim. The next day, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint. The Court granted the motion on March 29, 2021 and the plaintiffs immediately filed the amended complaint.

On March 26, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed the denial of their second preliminary injunction motion at the Massachusetts Appellate Court (case no. 2021-J-0126). On April 2, 2021, the Appellate Court (Judge Meade) decided to refer this matter to a panel. On May 20, the plaintiffs’ appeal was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court for its direct appellate review (case no. SJC-13125). On November 18, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim is unlikely to prevail, and thus the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s February 17, 2021 denial order. The case was remanded to the Superior Court, where the case continued to proceed as an emergency matter.

On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on a claim that the Commissioner violated the decarceration law. On the same day, the defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment for all claims, stating that there were no material facts in dispute.

On May 19, 2022, the case was reassigned from the Superior Court Judge Ullmann to the Superior Court Judge Rosemary Connolly.

After the parties’ correspondence and filing of further information upon the Court’s request, on March 7, 2023, the Superior Court issued the order on cross-motions for summary judgment. 2023 Mass. Super. LEXIS 2826.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants had violated the decarceration law. The Court also denied the plaintiffs’ Massachusetts Constitution claims and Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments claims. Regarding the Eighth Amendment claim, as the same as in the June 2, 2020 order, the Court held that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. The Court did not specifically analyze the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim. Additionally, the Court instructed the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the civilly committed persons, because no class was certified and no claims were pursued on their behalf.

On March 13, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of claims regarding civilly committed persons, as instructed by the court.

No action has been taken since then, the case is now closed.