Title: Negron v. Commissioner of Correction

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13512 
 
JOSE L. NEGRON  vs.  COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & others.1 
 
 
May 29, 2024. 
 
 
Mandamus.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Jose L. Negron, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief 
in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 5.  We 
affirm. 
 
 
The petitioner is currently incarcerated at the 
Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk.2  In his 
petition, he sought to compel the respondents to comply with 
various statutes and regulations related to allowing inmates to 
participate in various programming and to earn so-called "good 
conduct deductions" in order to reduce the length of his 
sentence.3  More specifically, he stated in his petition that the 
 
1 Department of Correction (department); and several named 
department officials. 
 
2 The petitioner states that he is serving a sentence of 
from twenty to twenty-five years for home invasion, and cites to 
Commonwealth v. Negron, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 1137 (2012), in which 
the Appeals Court affirmed that conviction.  He does not, 
however, provide any additional information, such as a trial 
court docket, that might indicate the basis for his 
incarceration. 
 
3 Pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 129D, one of the statutes to 
which the petitioner cites, for example, "[p]risoners are 
 
2 
 
respondents have used the Department of Correction (department) 
"Program Engagement Strategy" (PES) as a "tool" to deny equal 
participation in programming.  Additionally, according to the 
petitioner, the respondents indicated that until the petitioner 
participates in the "Community Recovery Academy," he will not be 
allowed to enroll in other programming.4  The single justice 
denied the requested relief without a hearing, and the 
petitioner appeals. 
 
 
"Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is 
granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is 
available."  Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 
(2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 
(1999).  "When a single justice denies relief in the nature of 
mandamus, 'his determination will rarely be overturned.'"  
Montefusco v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1015, 1015 (2008), quoting 
Mack v. Clerk of the Appeals Court, 427 Mass. 1011, 1012 (1998).  
"The petitioner bears the burden to allege and demonstrate the 
absence or inadequacy of other remedies."  Kim v. Rosenthal, 
473 Mass. 1029, 1030 (2016).  The petitioner has not met, and 
cannot meet, this burden where he had another adequate and 
effective avenue for seeking relief:  he could have filed a 
complaint in the Superior Court.  See Rasheed v. Commissioner of 
Correction, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023) (after plaintiff's 
informal and formal grievances, filed in connection with 
department's PES policy, were denied, plaintiff filed complaint 
in Superior Court).5   
 
 
The single justice did not abuse his discretion or commit 
an error of law in denying relief. 
 
eligible to earn deductions from sentences and completion 
credits, collectively known as good conduct deductions, for 
participation in and completion of" certain programs and 
activities.   
 
4 The department implemented the PES to incentivize inmate 
participation in various programming meant to prepare inmates 
for "successful reentry into the community."  Rasheed v. 
Commissioner of Correction, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023), 
quoting Butler v. Turco, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 80, 81 (2018).  
 
5 The petitioner appears pro se.  To the extent that he 
purports to represent not only himself but other similarly 
situated individuals as well, he may not do so.  See Stevenson 
v. TND Homes I LLC, 482 Mass. 1006, 1006 n.1 (2019), cert. 
denied, 140 S. Ct. 562 (2019). 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Jose L. Negron, pro se.