Case Title: Wright v. Department of Correction

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13085

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13085 
 
EDWARD G. WRIGHT  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION & another.1 
 
 
May 25, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Commissioner of Correction.  Mail. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Edward G. Wright, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
Wright is an inmate in the custody of the Massachusetts 
Department of Correction (DOC).  In 2018, he filed a complaint 
in the Superior Court that, as amended, sought declaratory and 
injunctive relief in connection with two DOC standard operating 
procedures (SOPs) implemented earlier that year.2  The first SOP 
provided that, in certain correction facilities, "all incoming 
non-privileged inmate mail shall be photocopied prior to 
distribution to the inmate," and only photocopy duplicates would 
be distributed to the inmate.  An inmate could choose to have 
the original mail sent to a designated person; otherwise, the 
SOP instructed that original mail be shredded after a retention 
period.  The second SOP concerned the treatment of inmate mail 
following an inmate's transfer to a different correction 
facility.  In essence, Wright claimed that the SOPs violated his 
constitutional rights and that they had been adopted in 
violation of 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 403 (2017) and 103 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 481 (2021), and the Massachusetts Administrative 
 
1 The former superintendent of Souza-Baranowski Correctional 
Center. 
 
2 In November 2018, Wright filed an amended verified 
complaint, and a second amended verified complaint. 
2 
 
 
 
Procedures Act, G. L. c. 30A.  In addition, Wright sought a 
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to 
prevent DOC from enforcing the SOPs during the pendency of the 
case. 
 
 
The defendants opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the 
complaint.  After a hearing, the judge denied Wright's 
injunction request as moot, "given the defendants' assurances to 
the court that they will maintain Wright's original mail until 
the conclusion of this case."  The judge also denied the 
defendants' motion to dismiss. 
 
 
In September 2020, on cross motions for summary judgment, 
the judge ordered that judgment enter declaring that 
implementation of the first SOP violates 103 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 481 (governing inmate mail), and that DOC was required to meet 
the requirements of G. L. c. 30A before it could adopt that SOP.  
The judge ordered that final judgment enter for purposes of 
appeal, but stayed execution of her judgment "for 180 days to 
permit DOC to take such action as it may deem appropriate, 
including amending 103 Code Mass. [Regs.] § 481 in conformance 
with [G. L. c. 30A]."3  That same day, Wright filed a "motion to 
correct" the judgment or for reconsideration.  The motion was 
denied, as were subsequent motions seeking other postjudgment 
relief. 
 
 
Wright thereafter filed a petition in the county court, 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking review of the Superior 
Court's judgment and the judge's other orders.  As amended, the 
petition generally claimed that the judge erred in failing to 
adjudicate the controversy relative to the SOPs, including the 
claimed violation of 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 403 (governing 
inmate property), and G. L. c. 30A, and in failing to order 
injunctive relief.  The single justice denied the petition. 
 
 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a petitioner to 
"set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision 
cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse 
judgment in the trial court or by other available means."  
S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  Wright failed to meet that burden.  While 
he asserts that the ordinary appellate process is inadequate 
 
3 The 180-day period ended on March 19, 2021.  In its 
opposition to Wright's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, the DOC 
represented that it had drafted new procedures, and that public 
hearings had been scheduled. 
3 
 
 
 
because of the time required to complete the process, the 
court's power of superintendence is reserved for those cases 
where either there is no alternative remedy or the alternative 
is truly inadequate.  Where, as here, a litigant basically seeks 
a shortcut around the ordinary appellate process without 
compelling circumstances, extraordinary relief from this court 
properly is denied.  See Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 
Mass. 1001 (2005).  Not only could Wright have pursued an appeal 
to the Appeals Court, but he "also could have requested that the 
Appeals Court expedite such an appeal" if he believed time was 
of the essence.  Blonde v. Antonelli, 463 Mass. 1002, 1002 
(2012), quoting Gifford v. Gifford, 451 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2008).  
We do not "assume that an expedited appeal before the Appeals 
Court would have been unavailable or inadequate" if warranted by 
the circumstances.  C.E. v. J.E., 472 Mass. 1016, 1016 (2015).  
In addition, he could have sought injunctive relief while the 
appeal was pending, if he believed an injunction was necessary.  
See Mass. R. A. P. 6, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019).  
The single justice simply was not obliged to allow the 
petitioner to bypass the ordinary process and jump to the front 
of the appellate queue.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Edward G. Wright, pro se. 
 
 
4 The Superior Court judge accepted the DOC's assurances 
that it was "preserving plaintiff's original mail during the 
pendency of the Superior Court action."  Although the Superior 
Court docket does not indicate that Wright has filed a notice of 
appeal, a single justice of the Appeals Court has power to allow 
a late filing of a notice of appeal within one year of the date 
of the judgment or order appealed from.  See Mass. R. A. P. 2, 
as appearing in 481 Mass. 1603 (2019); Mass. R. A. P. 14 (b), as 
appearing in 481 Mass. 1626 (2019).  While we express no opinion 
on whether any such motion should be allowed, we expect that the 
DOC will continue to preserve Wright's original mail for a brief 
further period to give Wright an opportunity to seek leave to 
file a late notice of appeal.