Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 1 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JULIAN T. STONE, et. al., )

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

v

)

)

)

JOHN 0. BOONE, et. al., )

______D__e_fe_n_d_a_n_ts_, ______

)
) )

CIVIL ACTION NO: 73-1083-T

PLAINTIFF "KILBURN§,{SUBSTITUTING FOR "STONE" BECAUSE HE DIED 1999)L VERIFIED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATION OF THE "CONSENT DECREE" ORDERED BY THIS COURT BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSEPH TAURO, {10/10/74).
Now comes the Plaintiff, Andrew w. Kilburn, substituting for
Plaintiff Julian Stone, because he died {1999), to file his Motion For Contempt For The Defendant's Violation Of The Honorable Judge Joseph Tauro's (10/10/74) CONSENT DECREE. as groun& thereto, the plaintiff stipulates the following has occurred since Judge Tauro Ordered The Walpole State Prison Administrators at MCI Cedar Junction to "build a LAW LIBRARY': SEE: EXHIBIT A.
1. On (10/10/74) Judge Tauro Ordered the Department Of Correction Defendants"to build a "LAW LIBRARY" within reasonable time but not later than (12/1/74)~' His Order From the CONSENT DECREE was (10/10/74).
2. He Ordered that the defendants "provide the inmates at "WALPOLE" with adequate physical and support facilities for the Law Collection.

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 1 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 5
( 2)
2. Con't These facilities shall include at least 400 linear feet of
shelving."
3."Supervised access for inmates during the week (both days &
evenings) including weekends."
4. On (10/27/04), the New Librarian (who is not a certified law librarian, but only a general librarian), BEVERLY VEGLAS, closed the Law Library until (11/9/04). When the then Law Library opened on (11/9/04), "VEGLAS" had changed the interpretation of the CMR's 103 CMR 478, and called it her New Library Policy. There was no longer scotch tape, white out and numerous other legal supplies afforded to inmates at Walpole. She, "VEGLAS" decided that the "General Population inmates can No Longer Make Copies Of The Case Law From The LAW BOO~Nor from The legal collection.
5. On (4/9/06) to (5/22/06) "VEGLAS"Ciosed the once Law Library and began to convert it into a "General Library" for which her certification only allows her to be employed. She, "VEGLAS", had the prison Law Clerks tearing up law boo~that had been donated to the prison since Judge Tauro's decision and has taken All of
The LAW BOOKS out of the Law Library & made it a GENERAL LIBRARY.
Now, the Law Books are behind a concrete wall behind the once Law Library and none of the inmates have access to them. There is no "Meaningful Access" to the Law Library at all anymore because it no longer exists !

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 1 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 5
( 3)
6. Thus, inmates now cannot Copy Law Cases from the Law Books and Now the Law Books are hidden away in a back room behind a "Concrete Wall" wherby none of the prisoners have "Hands-On Access" to those Law Books. Most of the Law Books are now stored out in warehouse in the Industries Building where the License Plate
Shop is, between that and the Laundry.
7. The Books in the General Library are"HARRY POTTER" ,"SERPICO", "CLEAR & PRESENT DANDER","FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS" and the lot. I cannot be citing page numbers from these books, the "Library" has now been rendered useless. I cannot properly research case
law for my current Civil & Criminal Pleadings to both the State
and Federal Courts.
8. Also, The"COPY MACHINES"(X2) are shut off with a special "Password Code" by Librarian "VEGLAS" or by her Library Assistant Recreation Officer, RICHARD SOLOMON. They do not allow these Copy Machines to run when they are not there. The "ACA", American Corrections Association Standards stipulate that Two (2) Librarians must be present for every scheduled Library session ••• BUT, VEGLAS and SOLOMON Refuse to honor the "ACA Standards". "VEGLAS" wrote a Memo to the Deputy Commissioner John Marshall (11/8/06) stating that "she'd be willing to train a couple corrections officers BUT that they wouldn't be the"Librarian's Designee" ••• in other word, she doesn't trust the officers to run the library when she's not there and these officers cannot use "HER" Copy Machines". This Plaintiff can only make "Copies" of Original Legal Documents on Monday Nights 6:30PM ••• NO OTHER DAYS • SEE: EXHIBIT B.

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 1 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 5
( 4)
(9) Now the Librarian expects all inmates to "MAIL" to her whatever one needs to be Copied. This is a major problem,for if the legal papers are lost ••• there's no accountability. The 9:30 PM Corrections Officer won't take this "inhouse mail" if it cannot fit into the slot of the locked mailbox. So now there's the dellema of waiting another week just to make copies of ones legal work product.
(10) Librarian, "VEGLAS" also expects to be allowed to have (3-5) working days to review ones legal papers and to make a cursory review, which she usually forwards to the Superintendent's Paralegal, CHERYL MAHER ••• which she reads and faxes legal pleadings to the Department Of Corrections Attorneys as well as to the Medical Provider-U. Mass. Corr. Med. Services' lawyers. I find myself,as well as other inmates, dealing with dispositive motions filed by the defendants before my pleadings have actually left this Prison. It's an extreemly unfair advantage.Not to mention that the "IPS", Inner Perimeter Security has their informants also working as law clerks ••• being privy to confidential information.
Wherefore, this Plaintiff prays that for the reasons briefly stated herein, that this Honorable Court will intervene. For the defendants had agreed to the"Consent Decree"by Judge Tauro of (10/10/74) yet are now failing to abide by it. There has been a blatant violation of the 1st & 14th Amendments of The United States Constitution with regards to inmates "Due Process" and "Access To The Courts". There's simply No "Meaningful Access" to the Walpole State Prison's Once Law Library anymore ••• This is Not what the United States supreme Court had in mind with

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 1 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 5
( 5 )
BOUNDS V. SMITH,430 U.S. 817 (1977) & LEWIS V. CASEY,518 U.S. 343 (1995). SEE: EXHIBIT C.
Sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury this 11th day
of December, 2006.

DECEMBER 11, 2006

I
STATE PRISON-CJ 2405 N. MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 100 S. WALPOLE, MASS.
02071

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Andrew w. Kilburn, pro-se, hereby certify, that I
have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents upon the defendant's Counsel, Asst. Atty. Gen. Bernard Manning, 70 Franklin Street, Boston, Mass., 02110, via 1st Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, on this 11th day of December, 2006.
I
KILBURN,

 
 Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 1 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JULIAN T. STONE, ET AL.,

)

Charles E. Caine, Jr.,

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs.

)

JOB 0. BOONE, ET AL.,

1

Harold w. Clarke, 11

)

Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73-1 083-JLT

PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CONSENT DECREE and 103 C.M.R. 478, and for CIVIL CONTEMPT
This is an action brought by a class member; surviving party;
intervenor; intended third party beneficiary and -pr-o -se- plaintiff,
Charles E. Caine, Jr., W-34359, pursuant to Federal Rules Of Civil
Procedures 70 and 71 for civil contempt and for enforcement of this
Court's consent decree entered in this matter on October!10,~1974, araising from the defendants and their officers, employees, agents,
successors, and all persons acting in concert with them in the
disobedience of the provisions of the consent decree entered into by
the parties and this Court (Tauro, J.) on October 10, 1974 providing
for the installation of an adequate law library at MCI-Walpole, now
known as MCI-Cedar Junction. (Consent Decree attached as EXHIBIT A).
1. In 1973 former plaintiff, Julian T. Stone~/ and the "STONE CLASS",
filed this lawsuit alleging violation of their First, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments rights in conjunction with the defendants
impeding inmates access to the courts by refusing to provide ~
inmates with access to law books and needed legal resource materials.
1/ Harold w. Clarke is the current Ccmnissioner of Dept. of Correction, substituted for John o. Boone is no lo~ll.in office, pursuant to Fed.R.Civi.P. 25 (d)(1).
~/ Charles E. Caine, Jr., a state inmate is substituted for lead plaintiff, Julian T. stone died in 2001 in MCI-Souza Baranoswki Correctional Center, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25 (a)(2). 1 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 2 of 25

2. Thereafter, the lawsuit was certified as a class action pursuant

to Rule 23 (a) and (b), affecting all present and future similarly

situated prisoners incarcerated at MCI-·Walpole/MCI-Cedar Junction.

3. on October 10, 1974 the parties entered into a binding consent

decree, requiring among other things:

A. That " ••. a [LAW LIBRARY] will be installed at MCI-Walpole as soon as feasible. Said library shall contain BUT SHALL NOT
BE LIMITED TO, the following volumes:

Paragraph - 2:

Para.

3:

Para.

4:

Para.

10:

Para.

28:

Para.

38~

Supreme Court Reporters (starting with 1950);
Federal Reporters (starting with 1960); Federal Supplement (starting with 1960); Massachusetts Decisions (start with volume 1); Prison Law Reporters; and Supreme Court Practice."

(Consent Decree attached as EXHIBIT A).

4. This Court's consent decree requires that the defendants shall

also, within a reasonable time, but not later than December 1, 1974

agree to:

l. " providing funding of continuing revision (i.e. pocket parts) for the above [law] library beginning with the 1976 fiscal
year; 11
2. " provide the inmates at Walpole with adequate physical and support facilities for the law collection. These facilities shall include at least 400 linear feet of shelving;"
3. " supervised access for inmates during the week (both days and evenings) including weekends. The law library shall be open to all inmates· (except as special circumstance dictate) for a reasonable number of hours during the week;"
4. " The parties shall also agree, within a reasonable time, to develope rules and regulations for the supervision and
maintenance of the law library at MCI-Walpole;" and
5. " This decree shall be binding upon the defendants and their officers, employees, agents, successors, and all persons acting in concert with them.

(See, Consent Decree as EXHIBIT A).

5. Thereafter, the parties agreed upon and promulgated re~Julations

for the supervision and maintenance of the law library as DOC 103 CMR 478.01 et seq. dfitl.ed·:January 4, 199l.attached as EXHIBIT B.

2 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 3 of 25
6. On November 30, 1973 plaintiff caine was co111111itted to ·the custody and care of the defendants. Caine is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. See Com. vs. Caine, 366 Mass. 366 (1974). Be is currently incarcerated at MCI-Cedar Junction, formerly known as MCI-Walpole, in Walpole, Massachusetts. 7. From October 1988 through October 2004 defendants provided Caine a general population inmate with access to the MCI-Walpole/MCI-Cedar Junction main law library area accordance with DOC 103 Code Of Mass. Regulation 478.01 et seq., as mandated by this Court's consent decree. (See, 103 C.M.R. 478.00 attached as EXHIBIT B). 8. On September 5, 1996 defendants' agent, Nancy White, Associate Commissioner/General Counsel issued a memorandum to advise all institution, librarians to remove all law books from their prison law libraries that are not "expressly mentioned in the Boone consent decree." White listed all the law books that "should be eliminated from inmate law libraries" within the Commonwealth.violates the Stone vs. Boone Consent Decree's mandate that "Said library shall contain BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED~~O,the following (38) volumes:" (See, White's MEMORANDUM attached as EXHIBIT C). 9. From 1991 to 1999 defendants had reduced the daily three (3) time periods (8:30am to 11:30am, 1:30pm to 3:30pm and 6:30pm to 8:30pm) of access to the main law•:library area for all inmates housed in the general population in bOth the west Wing and East Wing main corridor at MCI·-Cedar Junction from 7-hours per day/49-hours per week to seven .( 7 l 2-hour .periods per week during the evening ·for inmates housed in the West Wing, and six (6) 2-hour periods per week during the afternoons for inmates housed in the East Wing in direct violation of the xe~uired time periods in this Court's Consent Decree,
3 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 4 of 25
10. From July 2000 to March 1, 2002 defendants' agent, Librarian, Beverly Ferris Veglas untla:te:r;:atljrlremoved over 2, 000 volu•nes of law books from the shelves~in the main law library area and has stored those law books in the storehouse at MCI-Cedar Junction, because said law ~ks are not among the 38 named volumes mandated by this Court's
QQnauat decree. Veglas removed the entire volumes of Corpus Juris
Secumdum, Words & Phrases, Acts & Resolves, Mass. Decision:; Volumes 1 t6 1959, Supreme Court Report from 1900 to 1959 and many other law books. The removal of these law books violates th~s Court's consent decree that states "Said library shall contain BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, the following (38) volumes;" named in the consent decree. (See Partial list of removed law books attached as EXHIBIT D). 11. On February 23, 2004 defendants' agent, Veglas denied Caine's requests for photocopies and access to the Atlantic 1st, 2nd and 3rd
•
series,to pre-1960 Mass. Dec1. ~oI ns an~" u.s. Supreme Court Decisions,
because those law books are not expressly mandated in this Court's consent decree. f.See LEGAL PHOTOCOPYING REQUEST FO~~S attached as EXHIBITS P 8, 9, 25 altd 2'7,\to 40). 12. Thereafter, as a direct result of the defendants' -ag.ant, VeglasJ. actions in removing over 2,000 volumes of law books from the main law library area and eliminating the 20-year-old policy of providing <ll:l<tnmates with photocopies of statutes, case laws, treati.ses and other legal rescmrce materials to keep and study in their c'ells, plainti.ff Caine and similarly situated inmates' ability to effectively research legal issues and draft criminal appeals and condition confinement lawsuits have been seyerely hindered since time' and capacity (20 inmates at a time per period) in the (general~ library area was reduced and several inmates may need to use the same law
4 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 5 of 25

book, at the sametime, it is possible that it takes weeks to simply

read

one

court

decision

per··period

in

the

general

library

3/ area.-

13. On November 8, 2004 defendants' agent, Librarian, Veglas converted

the main law library area into a [GENERAL] library area in direct

violation of this Court's consent decree. (See EXHIBIT A).

14. From October 27 1 2004 through November 8, 2004 defendants' agent$1 Beverly F. Veglas the Librarian, John Luongo the Deputy Superintendent

of Classification and Programs, and David Nolan the Superintendent at

MCI-Cedar Junction used the sub-provision in 103 CMR 478.1:! (2) "written

procedures regarding daily [operating procedures] shall be established

by the Librarian with the approval of the superintendent. "''to ignore

and violate certain specific provisions contained in this Court's

October 10, 1974 Con'sent Decree, in the Jollowing respects:

A, To substantially change and modify this Court's consent decree
and o.o.c. 103 C.M.R. 478.01 et. seq. and implementation of the so-called

"MCI-cedar Junction Procedure for 103 CMR 478.00 Library Services"

without seeking both the permission of the class members nor written

approval of th:ts Court after a hearing upon a motion to m:::>dify certain

specific provisions contained in the consent decree and 103 CMR 478.00.

(See Beverly F. Veglasl MCI--C.J. Procedure for 103 CMR 478.00 attached

as EXHIBIT E) i

B. Defendants' agent .. Librarian, Veg:L;as in her sworn affidavit

dated December 9 ,. 2004 boldly admits~ 'that the defendants misused 103 CMR

478,1.2 (2) "OPERATING PROCEDURES", to disregard and modify certain

specific provisions of the October 10, 1974 Consent Decree without proper

judicial decree as required by Rule 60 (b)(1-6). (See Vegl.:ts' AFFIDAVIT

Veglas stated that she determined, on her own

initiative, to invoke 103 CMR 478.12 (2) "operatin9 Procedures" to scrap

1_/ plaintiff Caine's AFFIDI\.VIT in supp::>rt of this Verified Complaint is attached
herewith.
5 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 6 of 25
and amend 103 CMR 478.07 (1)(2)(5) and (6) "Staff"i 103 CMR 478,08
"Budget"; 103 CMR 478.10 (5) "General Library Services"; 103 CMR 478,11
(1)(2)(3)(4}(a-b} and (5)(a) 11LelJal Services", "Photocppies" of statutes,
case laws, treatises and other legal resource mat:erials eli.minated and
"Supplies" of carbon paper eliminated; 103 CMR 478.14 (1) and (2}
"Responsible Staff"; and 103 CMR 478.17 "Effective Date" and, in effect
to disregard the obligations imposed by this Court's consent decree,
because Veglas concluded that 103 CMR 478.10 and 478.11 and this
Court's consent decree were to costly, unworkable, unaccepf:able,
bothersome and disliked in the following respects:
(i) Veqlas witheut stating her qualification as required by 103 CMR 478.07 (1) "Institutional Librarian- A full time staff member holding either a Master's Degree in Librarian Science or certification as a professional librarian." Veglas affirmed in her affidavit at paragraph:
1. "I am .•• the ••. institutional librarian for MCI-Cedar Junction •.• I have held this position since June 12, 2000." (See Veglas' Affidavit as
2. Pursuant to the L1orary Services regulationr written procedures regarding daily operating procedures shall be established by the librarian with the approval of the superintendent 103 CMR 478.11 (2}. Accordingly, the [Library] Services Procedures at MCI-Cedar Junction was
implemented on November a, 2004.
(See "MCI-Cedar Junction Procedure for 103 CMR 478, Library Services" attached as EXHIBIT E).
3. Pursuant to Library Services regulation, inmates are provided with photocopies " ••• of duplicating original legal documents and FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING ACCESS TO THE LEGAL COLLECTION." within a reasonable amounts at no charge. 103 CMR 478.11 (4}(a-b}.as EXHIBIT B. MCI-Cedar Junction provided these photocopying services to all. 866 or so inmates that are housed at the institution••• the library receives, on averages, 1261,to 150 requests for photocopying..•• per week•.•These requests result in approximately 28,0000 photocopies .•• each week.•• for a total of over 2 million copies per year. Making this extraordinary
6 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 7 of 25
number of photocopying for fiscal year 2003 to 2004 was$ 21,000.00 non-inclusive of labor costs. The costs of photocopying are paid for by the Department Of Correction (D.O.C.) ••• "
4, "Consequently, for both fiscal and practical reasons, the 20 year-old procedure by which all inmates obtain their photocopies of original legal documents and statutes, case laws, treatises and other legal resource materials from the general library area has been reviewed and modified ••• " The 396 state convicted inmates who are housed in the general population (216 inma~es in the West Wing and 180 inmates in the East Wing) at MCI-Cedar Junction are no longer permitted to request photocopies of statutes, case laws, treatises and other legal resourse materials to keep and study in their cells, rather these 396 inmates are li.mited to requasting a maximum of 5 law books per
(Paging System) request,~to read in the<qeneral library area. In addition to the 216 inmates' 7 2-hour periods and the 180 inmates' 6 2-hour periods were REDUCED to five (5) 2-hour periods per week access to the ~reneral library area to request the use illf law books. Only 20 inmates at a time are permitted to visit the general library area to read law books on a [FIRST COME BASIS]. The remaining 470 or so inmates housed in the restricted housing units and segregation cellblocks are permitted to;·. visit the general library area and~requires that those inmates be provided with photocopies of statutes, case laws, treatises and other legal resource materials to study in their cells in"aC:eordance with the 14 bay Legal Loaner Program (Paging system) for a maximum copy of 5 case laws per request, 1 or 2 requests per week. In the absense of the librarian or the librarian's designee, all photocopying request forms are to be submitted to the Department staff member on-duty and are placed in a secure area ••• the librarian or the librarian's designee
7 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 8 of 25
on his/her next designated workday, reviews the requests, and the requests are then turned over to the inmate law clerks for photocopying ••• Inmate law clerks are hired solely for the purpose of handling all inmate photocopying requests.. Barring any extenuating ci.rcumstances approved photocopying requests are completed and returned to the inmate within 3 to 5 working days. Contrast EXHIBIT N.
5. General population inmates have law library/genei·al library access for a total of 11-hours per week (e.g, cellblocks B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-8 go together on Tuesday & Thursday evenings, Friday &
afternoons and Saburday mornings for 4 2-hour periods and one 2~-hour period on Sunday afternoons). See Library Access Schedule attaclamabt B attached to EXHIBITsE-*O.In the absense of the librarian and the librarian's designee, other Department staff, such as l!:llle ·.ReQ'raat:benal Officers (R/0) and Correctional Officers (C.O.), cover the general library access periods. These non-library staff members are in the law/general library area solely for security purposes with surveillancE
cameilas mounted in the ceiling. See EXHIBITS E and o.
15. The November 8, 2004 MCI-Cedar Junction law and general library policy and Veglas' December 9, 2004 affidav.i>ti ( EXHIBITI E demonstrates that the defendants and their agents, Veglas, Luongo and Nolan detelllliltned on their own initiative to scrap law library regulation 103 CMR 478.01 et seq. (EKHIBIT B), in effect, to disregard the obligations imposed by thts Court's consent decree (EKHIBIT A), without seeking relief from the consent decree in accordance with proper judicial proceedings under Rule 60 (b), in the following respeets:
A. The defendants and their agent, Veglas unilaterally modified the requirements of the consent decree by (1) converting the law library
8 of 25
' - · --~--~~------·~---- ~

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 9 of 25
area into a general library area: (2) removed all the law books from the shelves in the general library area and relocated the law books to an adjacent room that is only accessible to the inmate law clerks and prison staff, all inmates are no longer allowed to browse through the entire law collection stacked on the shelves; (3) requiring 216 inmates housedin the West Wing and 270 inmates housed in the East Wing to compete on a (FIRST COME BASIS) for access to (20) available slots per-period to use either the legal collectio~ of law books or use the general (non-law books) collection of books like Harry Potter:; ( 4) reduced the total 49 hours access per week to 11 hours access per week for all 396 state convicted inmates housed in the general population, and 15 hours access per week for all 90 federal pre--trial detainees; and (5) excluding "class members" from actually participating in the development of past and current rules and regulations governing the supervision and mainteaillnce of the law library at MCI-Cedar Junction.
'B. 103 CMR 478.11 (4)(a) that was promulgated pursuant to the terms of the consent decree requiring the defendants to provide Caine with access to CONFIDENTIAL photocopying of his odginal legal documents and legal reference materials, in his presense, ilnd by a staff person designated by the superintendent.
Defendants and their agent, Veglas unilaterally modified 103 CMR 478.07 (6h."Institlitions may use inmates as library clerks", 103 CMR 478.11 (4)(a) "photocopying services shall be for the purpose of duplicating original legal documents and for the purpose of increasing access to legal collection. The superintendent shall designate the the staff member responsible for photocopying original legal documents and \'!"gal reference materials,"
9 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 10 of 25
Defendants and their agents modification is based on t:he defendants exercise of their discretion to create and confine at least 470 of the inmates housed within MCI-Cedar Junction/Walpole (C.J.) in various restricted housing units (i.e. Department Disciplinary Unit (D.D.U.)); Department Segregation unitS(D.S.U.); Bast ~ing Segregation
K; -r£N ::SL &<.
Units (E.W.S.U.); Orientation Units (OU-I and II);~Nine Block; HSU and Federal Pre-Trial Detainees Units (Fed Blocks) and thereafter restricting these inmates access to the law library and requiring that those inmates be provided with photocopies of original legal documents and with copies of statutes, case laws, treatises and other legal resource materials and said photocopying compelled modification of 103 CI'!IR 478.11 (4)(a) "Due to the sheer volume of photocopies being made, MCI-Cedar Ju-qction's main law library, like all of the other libraries within the Department's institutions, no longer makes. photocopies on demand during the inmate's allotted time in the law library/general library area as had been done for 20 years. See EXHIBITS B, E, K and 0.
"All photocopying requests are to be submitted to the Department staff member on--duty and are placed in a secure area>" See,. EXHIBITs E and 0, VIII. Photocopying at 478.08 and 478J*&.
"Inmate law clerks are hired solely for the purpose of handling
all inmate photocopying requests." See, EXHIBI'l'S E and o.
On or about November 20, 2004 plaintiff Caine filed an I~~ate Request To See Staff Member Form informing defendants that their N·ovember 8, 2004 photocopy policy--non-confidential photocopying violated the consent decree and 103 CMB Cl8.11 {4)(a) and that said policy was chilling t•e exercise of his state and federal constitutional rights to seek redress in the cou~ts.
10 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 11 of 25

c. 103 CMR 478.11 (5)(a) requires defendants to provide Caine
with typing paper, pencils, carbon paper and envelopes for the express purposes of preparing and fil!.f.llg;;his legal pleadings in the courts, however, under defendants' November 8, 2004 policy Caine does not
have a right to typing paper, ink pens and envelopes, unle:ss he de~onsttate a need for said supplies.
Defendants denied Caine's requests for carbon paper for the purpose of making carbon copy of his "original legal documents" as a back-up if his original legal documents are lost in the institutional mailing system as set forth in tl1ii MCI-Cedar Junction Procedure for 103 CMR 478. 08 and 478.10 as EXHIBITS E and O, plus 4 ~ICES OF (G) Annual~ Library INVE1"l''IRY 2/20/2007; (H) Library Photocopy Protocol 8/1 /07; (I) Annual Audti of LAW cnr.TJiCI'Iql 4/23/08; and (J) Original Legal Photocopy 8/25/2008 attached as EXHIBITS G, H, I & J.
D. On or about November 29, 2004 Caine was compelled to comply with defendants' November 8, photocopy policy 478. OS in (EXHIBIT E), Caine submitted his legal documents (i.e. criminal memorandum and Decision, S,J.C. for Suffolk No. 2004-0160) through the institution mailing system to an on-duty staff member for photocopying 0utside the present of Caine. The on--duty staff member misplaced the said legal documents and said legal materials were never returned to Caine.
E. On November a, 2004 defendants and their agents reduced the
allotted law library access time from the general population to 10 hours of law library access periods per week for 216 i~mates and
1'~ ll-
limited the maximum nwmber of inmates allowed,_period to 25 inmates at a time,:.including inmate clerks(i.e. 4), thus general population
has only 10 hours per week X 21 = 210 inmates, there are 216 inmates
confined in the West Wing thus each inmate confined in the West Wing if luck [FIRST COME BASIS], are provided only 50 mtnute,3 per week
11 of 25

_ _ ---- ,

-----~~--

..

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 12 of 25
law library access time. The 180 state convicted irunates confined in the East Wing general population are also limited to 10 hours of law library access time per week ilinlil lioiited the maximum number of inmates allowed per period '!l.to 20 tnmates at a time, including irunat:e clerks (i,e. 4), thus the 180 state convicted inmates and 90 federal pre-trial detainees housed in the general population has only 10 hours per week X 20 = 180 state C•)nvicted inmates, thus each state inmate confin•~d in the East Wing if luckyf[FIRST COME BASIS], are provided only oneho•J.r per week law library access time. On December 10, 2004 Caine filed an Inmate Request To See Staff Member Form alleging that the one hour per jt"eek law library time was inadequate and violated the consent decree and was preventing Caine from researching, preparing and filing his 4th Rule 30 Motion For New Trial.
F. on December 12, 2004 defendants implemented a revised promulgated 103 CMR 478.00 deleting carbon paper 478.11 (5]:(a), and also deleted photocopying services shall be " ••• for the purpose of increasing access to the legal collection." clearly violates this Court's consent decree that States ''Said library shall contain BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, the following (38) volumes:" See 103 CMR 478.00 Library Services dated December 1, 2004 attached as EXHIBIT K.
G. On January 17, 2005 defendants denied Caine's requests for a photocopy of the November 8, 2004 MCI-Cedar Junction Procedure for 103 CMR 473 Library Services policy mar~ked EXHIBIT E. Thereafter, defendants' agent, Veglas denied Caine's request for a copy of the 103 CMR 478.00 and other policies are to be read in the general library area. See LEGAL INTERLIBRARY LOAN REQUEST FORM attached aB EXHIBIT P7 to 9.
12 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 13 of 25
•.
H. on August 31;, 2005 plaintiff Caine filed a GRIEVANCE No. 12955 alleging that the on-duty c.officer assigned to the law library area refused Caine's requests to unlock the wall cabinet so that Caine could
resume reading the Federal Habeas Corpus Practices & Procedures and the
Lawyers Manual because Caine has a petition C.A. No. 03-11065-PBS pending in this Court. Said Grievance was partial approved on September 29, 2005 by the Institutional Grievance Coordinator (lGC), Ann Marie Aucoin, c.o.I stated "That the on-duty c.o. inadvertently failed to note the postings placed in the library." to unlock wall-cabinet. See GRIEVANCE No. 12955 attached as EXHIBIT L.
I. On September 1, 2005 Caine filed another Grievance No. 12981 alleging the on-duty c.o., Barett refused Caine's requests to unlock the wall-cabinet so that Caine could resume reading the Federal Habeas
Corpus Practice & Procedures and Lawyer Manual because Caine has a
petition C.A. No. 03-11065-PBS pending in this Court. Said grievance was denied on September 30, 2005 because this problem was resolved in gr,ievance No. 12955 described in preceding paragraph H. See GRIEVANCE
No. 12981 attached as EXHIBIT M.
J. On November 25, 2005 Caine filed a Grievance No. 14762 alleging
the on-duty tR.D., Gary Fyfer denied Caine's requests to accept and
approve photocopying request forms with attached original legal documents. Recreational Officer, Fyfer claimed he is not authorized to accept completed legal photocpying request forms from inmates nor
p is he authorized to unlock the photoc~y machine. Said grievance was denied on November 29, 2005 by IGC, Ann Marie Aucoin, c.o.r. See GRIEVANCE No. 14762 attached as EXHIBIT N.
K. On August 3, 2007 Caine filed Inmate Request To See Staff Member Form to Beverly F. Veglas, Librarian and Richard Solomon,
13 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 14 of 25
Recreational Officer who is permanently assigned to: the law library area since 1985, and plaintiff Caine alleged that since February of 2005 he has been and continues to be denied ppysical access to the law library area at least once or twice a week due to the [FIRST COME BASIS] that limits only 4 inmates from each cellblock is allowed access to the law library per-period as set forth in ATTACHMENT G to the revised MCI-Cedar Junction Procedure for 103 CMR 478.00 attached as EXHIBIT O.
Defendants' agent, Veglas denied Caine's propose remedies for adequate law library access time per week for all inmates 1vho wish to conduct legal research in the general library area because inmates who wish to use the general library area to socialize with fellow inmates, or browse through the (non-legal) general collection of books like Harry Potter, those inmates have the same constitutional rights to access to the general library area as due those inmates who wish to access the general library area to conduct legal research, to write or type-up criminal pleadings or condition confinement lawsuits. See Inmate Request To See Staff Member Form attached as EXHIBIT Q.
L. On August 9, 2007 Caine filed a "Legal Interlibrary Loan Request Form to Beverly Ferris Veglas, Librarian and Richard Solomon, R/0 permanently assigned to the law library area, and Caine also attached a list citing 52 case laws and other resource materials have been TORN-OUT OF THE LAW BOOKS, and Caine requested copies of said missing legal case laws to read in his cell. See Request Form attached as EXHIBIT P 1 to 42.
Thereafter, on August 10, 2007 defendants' agent, Veglas sent copies of 10 case laws to Caine to read in his cell under the new
14 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 15 of 25
14 Day Legal Loan Program which allowed plaintiff Caine to request copies of a maximum of 5 case laws (i.e. torn-out of the lawbooks) per request, and onl~ 2 requests per week which violates this Court's consent decree and 103 C.M.R. 478.11 (4)(a).
M. On ·October 1, 2007 Caine filed another LEGAL INTERLIBRARY LOAN REQUEST FORM to Beverly F. Veglas, Librarian and Richard Solomon, R/0, and Caine attached a 2nd list citing 77 case laws have either the first 2 pages or last 2 pages torn-out of the law books, and Caine requested copies of these said missing case laws to read in his cell in accordance to 103 CMR 478.11 (4)(a) " ••. for the purpose of increasing access to the legal collection.'' and 478.11 (4)(c) "The librarian shall make reasonable efforts to secure materials not in an institution's collection but available through established inter-library loan procedures." See Legal Interlibrary Loan Request Form attached as EXHIBIT P 17 to 22.
Thereafter, on October 3, 2007 Caine filed a grievanc•~ No. 29823 alleging that Veglas denied his request for copies of 5 case laws tornout of the law books to read in his cell as described in preceding paragraph M. Said grievance partially approved by IGC/C.O., Robert E. Stork who stated "Case law that is available in the law library must be read in the library. Only cases that area not available in the law library may be requested through the institution librarian on a 14 Day Loaner period." Grievance Appeal denied by Supuerintendent, Peter st. Arnand who stated "I concurred with IGC, •• there is no policy that mandates the librarian to provide copies of case law to innates." (See GRIEVANCE No. 29823 attached as EXHIBIT R).
N. On November 29, 2007 defendants' agent, Veglas informed Caine that her supervisor Mary-jo Sweeney, Manager Of Library Services had
-v ordered Veglas to terminate the 14 Day Legal Loaner Program to all ., 1.4
inmates housed in the general population~continue to provide the 14
1 5 of 2 5

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 16 of 25
14 Day Legal Loaner Proram to~ inmates housed in the restricted units and segregation cellblocks within MCI-Cedar Junction.
o. On December 17, 2007 plaintiff Caine was removed from the general
population and transferred to the Department Segregation Unit (D.S.U.) cellblock B-3 for being forced to urinate in a plastic bag lining a
trash barrel in the main law library area, because the on-duty c.o.,
Timothy Mello re·fused to allow Caine to return to his cell to use the toilet. Veglas had issued an order that the inmate toilet and
Wo..-'t~'Jt
drinking~facility located across the hallway from the law library was no long-'1.1\.available to inmates because Veglas was usinq said facility. See Disciplinary Report No. 121889 attached as EXHIBI'r T, and also see EXHIBITS E and 0 at 478.02 (I)(I) and 478.02 (I)(G) "Inmates who request to leave the main law library for purpose of using the bathroom will be allowed to leave, however, may not be allowed to return."
P. On December 27, 2007 defendants' agent, Veglas denied Caine's Legal Photocopying Request Form for copies of 10 case laws dated before 1960, because this Court's consent decree does not mandate the law library to provide case law prior to 1960. See EXHIBI'l' P 29 & 30.
Thereafter Veglas suggested that Caine can purchase copies of the said 10 case laws cited by the U.S. Supreme Court from the Bristel Trial Court Law Library in violation of this Court's consent decree and 103 CMR 478.11 (4)(c). See Legal Photocopying Request Form marked
as EXHIBIT P 27 & 28, and April 15, 2008 Reply letter by Debra
O'Donnell, Acting Head Law Librarian at Bristel Law Library attached as EXHIBIT S.
Q. On January 10, 2008 defendants' agent, Librarian, Beverly F. Veglas denied plaintiff Caine's request to use the minumum 5 hours per week access to either the main law library area or Block 10 D.s.u. satellite Law Library area to conduct legal research on his 4th Rule
16 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 17 of 25
30 Motion For New Trial and to use the typewriter and photocopyy machine as mandated in this Court's Stipulation Of Dismissal in
Cepulonis vs. Fair, u.s.o.c., C.A. No.78-3233-Z dated June 24, 1987.
Veglas denied Caine's request to visit the Satellite Law Library area because Veglas believes the Stipulation does not apply to DSU cell blocks B-3 and B-7 which her decision violates PART I.A. in the Stipulation in Cepulonis. See Veglas • Reply LETTER dated 'I /10/08 attached as EXHIBIT U.
R. On January 18, 2008 plaintiff Caine filed a grievance No. 31752 alleging that the Librarian, Veglas has restricted Caine to submitting a written request for copies of a maximum of 5 ·~ase laws per request once a week or once a month for purpose of legal research on his 4th Rule 30 Motion For New Trial is in direct violation of this Court's consent decree in Stone .vs. Boone, and also the Stipulation in Cepulonis. Said grievance denied by IGC on June 20, 2008. Grievance Appeal pending. See Grievance Forms attached as EXHIBIT V and EXHIBITS P 29 to 40.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
"S T ,A •N 'Di!•·,N· G
Caine is a member of Julian T. Stone, et al vs. John 0. Boone,
·et al, u.s.n.c. Mass. Civil Action No. 73-01083-JLT class and is a
third party beneficiary of the Stone, et al consent decree of October 10, 1974 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 71 and thereby has standing to bring this action to enforce the consent decree.
Hook vs. State Of Aroz. Dept. Of Corrections, 972 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1992) "Rule 71 clearly allows intended third party beneficiaries to enforce consent decrees." "In short, intended third party beneficiaries of a consent decree have standing to enforce the decree.'' Id. 972 F.2d at 1014.
17 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 18 of 25

It is indisputable that plaintiff Caine is an intended third

party beneficiary under the 1974 consent decree. The decree provides that "defendants to provide ••• an adequate law library at MCI-Walpole",

"shall be open to all inmates" and "supervised access for inmates".
(See Consent Decree marked as EXHIBIT A).

In any event, the Stone litigation was certified as cl class

action by this Court to include all future inmates house ctt Walpole.

Caine has been an inmate confined within MCI-Walpole/MCI-Cedar Junction since November 30, 1973. Thus, Caine is an intend third

party beneficiary of 1974 consent decree and with standinsr to enforce

his rights under the 1974 consent decree .

. I BREACH OF CONSENT DECREE

It is well established that consent decrees are essentially

contracts agreements that are given the status of a judicial decree.

Contract principles are generally applicable in our analysis of

consent decrees, provided contract analysis does not undermine the judicial character of the decree. Consent decrees are construed
as contracts for purposes of enforcement. United States v. ITT
Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S: 223, 238 (1975).

Hook, "Therefore, enforcement of sonsent decrees is govern

by the established contract principles that non-parties, as

intended third party beneficiaries, may enforce an agreement.'' Id

972 F.2d at 1014. Laplante v, Depatrment of Correction,

F. Supp. 2d .::::...--

2003 WL 1877872(0. Mass.) "under Massachusetts law, a
settlement agreement is enforceable as a contract, United States v.
Baus, 834 F,2d 1114, 1127 (1 Cir. 1987). Contract interpretation

ordinarily is a question of law for the court •.. Where the wording

18 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 19 of 25

of the contract is unambiguous, it must be enforced according to

its terms. Edmonds v. United States, 642 F,2d 877, 881 (1 Cir.1981).
A question of fact for determination by a jury arises only when

contractual terms are ambiguous." WL 1877872 at 6.

Morrison v, Travisono, 509 F. 2d 1358, 1360 (1 Cir.l975)

"Defendants cannot unilaterally order the elimination of rights

determined in federal courts simply bacause the decree wae1 to be

enforced through state machinery."

Defendants cannot ignore the decree because they viewed the

terms of the decree unworkable, unaccepsable, costly and burdensome.

Defendants' agents, Nancy White's Memorandum and Beverly F.

Veglas' affidavit demonstrates that the defendants determine on their

own to disregard the terms of the consent decree, without leave of

this Court. (See, EHIBI'I'41 C·

). Rufo vs. Inmates Of Suffolk

County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748,760 (1992) ''a party seeking modification

of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant

change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.''
•A party seeking modification of a consent decree may meet

its initial burden by showing either a significant change either

in factual conditions or in law." The burden rests on the defendants

and cannot be alleviated by ignoring the consent decree and compelling

the inmates to undertake litigation to enforce the decree." Hook,

972 F.2d at 1017. The proper approach for modification is a

Rule 60(b) motion. Defendants failed to seek judicial modification.

In the case at bar, the consent decree unambiguously obligates

the defendants and their agents to provide Caine! with access to:

2. Supreme Court Reports (starting with 1950); 3. Federal Reporters (starting with 1960);

19 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 20 of 25

4. Federa Supplement (starting with 196Qi

10. Massachusetts Decisions (starting with Volume 1);

28. Prison Law Reports;
33. Handbook on criminal law in the u.s. District Court;

35. Sentencing;; and 38. Supreme Court Practice.

(See Consent Decree EXHIBIT A)

Further, the decree obligates the defendants:

1.

To fund costs for MCI-Walpole/Cedar Junction

law library beginning with the 1976 fiscal year;

2.

To provide the inmates at Walpole with adequate

physical and support facilities for the law collection. These s ' '

fa~llities shall include at least 400 linear feet of shelving;

(Exhibit "A")

3.

To provide supervised access for inmates during

the wee~ (both days and evenings) including weekends. The law library

shall be open to all inmates ••• for a reasonable number of hours

during the week; ---

4.

The parties shall also agree, within a reasonable

time, to develop rules and regulations for the supervision and

maintenance of the law library at MCI-Walpole. Thereafter the

- parties agreed upon 103 CM. R"' 4. 7.8.,..0.1 et seq •

The September 5, 1996 Memonrandum by Nancy White, the November 8,

2004 Library policy, and Beverly F. Veglas' affidavit of December 9,

2004 (Exhibits C, D I

reveals that the defendants simply determined,

on their own initiative, to scrap both this Court's consent decree and
103 CMR 478.01 et seq. (Exhibits A & B) and, in effect, to disregard
the obl~igations imposed on them by the consent decree and 103 CMR 478.

11 as unworkable, costly and bothersome. (Exhibits E & O).

This the defendants cannot do, in fact the defendants are

bound by the terms of the consent decree until this cqurt issues

an; order otherwise under Rule 60(b).

Here, the terms of the decree and 103 CMR 478.11 and defendants

flagrant disregard for those terms are clear.

Accordingly, defendants have breached the consent decree and

103 C.M.R. 478.00.

20 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 21 of 25
CIVIL CONTEMPT
A court's inherent power to hold a party in civil contempt may be exercise only when (1) the order the party allegedly failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the party has not diligently attempted in a reasonable manner to comply." EEOC v. Local 638 Local 28 of Sheet Metal Worker's Int., 753 F.2d 1172, 1178 (2 Cir. 1985), aff'd 478 U.S. 421 (1986). These prerequisites are satisfied here.
The district court has wide latitude in determining whether there has been a contemptuous defense of its order." Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 ( 9 Cir.l984). Spallane v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) "federal courts have inherent power to enforce their lawful orders through contempt." See also Fortin v. Comm'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790, 797 ( 1 Cir. 1982).
Here, defendants, Nancy White's memorandum of September 5, 1996, the November 8, 2004 Library Services policy, Beverly F. Veglas' affidavit of December 9, 2004 and plaintiff Caine's grievances all demonstrates that the defendants are in contempt of the unambuguous terms of this Court's consent decree and 103 CMR 478.07(1)(2) and (6); 478.08; 478.11(2)(a-b); 478.11(3); and 478.11(4)1a-c) and (5)(a).
Further, White's memorandum, Veglas' affidavit, the November 8, 2004 and February 6, 2007 Library Services policies reveals that Veglas and the defendants misused 103 CMR 478.12(2) to modify and disregard certain terms contain in this Court's consent decree and 103 CMR 478.11 et seq.
21 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 22 of 25

Here, defendants November 8, 2004 policy, Veglas's affidavit

and Caine's grievances all demonstrates that the defendants are

in contempt of the unambiguous terms of the consent decree and

103 CMR 478,07(1·)(2) and (6); 478.08; 478,11(2)(a-b); 478.11(3);

478,11(4)(a)(5)(a).

Further, Veglas affidavit and the November 8, 2004 policy

reveals that Veglas and the defendants misused 103 CMR 478.12(2)

to modify and ·disregard the consent decree and 103 CMR 478.11 et seq.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff •prays that this Court:

o<

,.,

'

1,

Issue a su~~S~1··~t~~cting the defendants to within ten

(10) days hereof appear and show cause why the instant complaint

for civil contempt should not be granted;

2.

After hearing, find that the defendants and their agents

breached the consent decree and are in contempt of court;

3.

As a sanction for defendants breach and contempt, enter

an order providing as follows:

A.

Defendants are permanently enjoined from

violating the terms of the October 10, 1974 consent decree and 103

CMR 478.07( 1)(2)(6); 478.08; 478.10( 1-5); 478.11(1 )(2)(3) (4)•(a-c)

& (5)(a), forthwith.

B.

Defendants are permanently enjoined and required

to comply with the terms of the consent decree and 103 CMR 478.01

et seq.
c. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and required to

forthwith recall the November 8, 2004 and February 6, 2007 MCI-Cedar

Junction law library policies and issue a memo to all the inmates

within MCI-Cedar Junction stating that said policies should not have

been issued without judicial action pursuant to Rule 60 (b);

22 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 23 of 25
I D. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and required to forthwith recall the 12/17/2004 D.O.C. 103 CMR 478.11 (4)(a) and re-instate the provision to provide all inmates housed with MCI-C.J. who request phot:oc:x>pies of statutes, case laws, treatises and other legal resource materials from the law collection and issue a memo to all the inmates housed within MCI-Cedar Junction stating that said subsection should not have been modified without the paricipation and approval of the inmate population in developing the rules and regulations governing the main law library in accordance with the terms of this Court's consent decree; E. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and required to provide plaintiff Caine and similarly situated inmates housed in the general population with access to in-person confidential photocopying services for the express purposes of photocopying his/their legal documents, pleadings and legal reference materials; F. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and required to forthwith convert the general library area back to a law library area and therefater all inmates who visit the law library area shall be permitted to browse through the entire legal collection of law books stacked on the shelves; G. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and required to forthwith remove 3 of the 4 chairs from each 5' X 2.J' tables to provide confidentuality to any inmate who whishes to use a table to conduct adequate legal research, to write or type criminal pleadings or condition confinement lawsuits, or to assemble briefs or complaints . H. Defendants and their agents are enj.*•ned and required to forthwith return all the law books, pocket parts and other legal
from the main law library resource materials that Veglas removed ~ from July 2000 to present date of this order, and has stored said law books in the storehouse,
23 of 25
--------·--------~--·--~~-

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 24 of 25
to return said law books, pocket parts and other legal resource materials back to the shelves in the main law library for use by all the inmates housed at MCI-Cedar Junction as mandated in this Court's consent decree s"lites "Said library shall contain BUT SHALL NO BE LIMITED TO, the following (38) volumes:"
I. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and require('! to ~".
forthwith develope and implement a REQUEST TO USE MAIN LAW LIBRARY FORM for all inmates housed in the general population shall be allowed
iN
to place their completed request forms\the locked law library mailboxs already mounted on the wall in each cellblocks, at least one day before the time period requested to access the main law library area, a similar access procedure is already in use by inmates housed in the restricted cellblocks and segregation cellblocks;
J. Defendants and their agents are enjoined and required to re-open the toilet facility across the hallway to the main law library area to provide all MCI-Cedar Junction inmates access to a toilet, drinking water, toilet paper, handwash sink and soap while accessing themain law library area in accordance with the Department Of Public
Health 105 Code of Massachusetts Regulation 451.100 through 117; K. That defendants' attorney shall file an affidavit of
compliance with the above orders within ten (10) days; L. Defendants and their agents and successors in office are
permanently enjoined from retafating against Caine because he brought
"
this matter to this Court's attention or any other inmate who may have testified or provided Caine with an affidavit in this matter and from transfering Caine to any other prison or correctional facility during the pendency of this action without permission of this Court.
4. Award plaintiff compensatory damages; 24 of 25

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 11 Filed 09/10/08 Page 25 of 25

5. Award plaintiff Caine nonimal damage; 6. Award plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable standby attorney fees; 7. Award such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

'~ 2008

C~£~
Charles E. Caine, Jr., W-34359 MCI-Cedar Junction P.O. BOx 100 South Walpole, Mass. 02071

VERIFICATION

I, Charles E. Caine, Jr., W-34359 hereby certify that I reside at MCI-Cedar Junction an the plaintiff herein, and that I have read the foregoing complaint for civil contempt and enforcement of CONSENT DECREE and 103 CMR 478 and know the contents thereof and that the same are true and accurate, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those ma.tters I believe them to be true.

-.s:: 2008.

D~£~
Charles E. Caine, Jr.

25 of 25
--·-----~- ·--··--------

 
 Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 8 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JULIAN T. STONE, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

JOHN O. BOONE, et al.,

*

*

Defendants.

*

Civil Action No. 73-1083-JLT

ORDER

April 10, 2007

TAURO, J.

This Court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiffs fail to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants violated

this court’s October 10, 1974, consent decree.1 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Contempt [#1] is DENIED.

2. This case is CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph L. Tauro United States District Judge

1 See Gilday v. Dubois, 124 F.3d 277, 282 (1st Cir. 1997).

 
 Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 18 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JULIAN T. STONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JOHN O. BOONE, et al., Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

Civil Action No. 73-01083-JLT

*

*

*

*

ORDER

March 13, 2014

TAURO, J.

Presently before this court is Defendant Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department

of Correction’s Motion to Terminate Consent Decree [#15]. The Commissioner seeks the

termination of a consent decree entered by this court in 1974 mandating that the Department of

Correction (“DOC”) provide a law library at the facility now known as MCI-Cedar Junction and

stock it with certain materials. The Commissioner asks that this court terminate the consent

decree pursuant to its authority under Rule 60(b)(5) because continuing to apply it would no

longer be equitable. The Commissioner also argues that the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”) requires the termination of the consent decree. For the reasons discussed briefly

below, this court will terminate the consent decree.

On April 9, 1973, Plaintiffs—inmates at MCI-Cedar Junction—initiated this suit against

the Commissioner alleging violations of their constitutional right of access to the courts. The

case settled in 1974 and the Parties drafted a consent decree. This court approved and entered

that consent decree on October 10, 1974. The consent decree requires the DOC to maintain an

adequate law library at MCI-Cedar Junction. It lists some thirty-eight print resources that the

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 18 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 4
DOC must stock and keep updated through the purchase of pocket parts. The decree also requires that a certain amount of physical space be available for the library. The consent decree did not represent a determination as to whether the DOC had violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and was silent about whether the remedies ordered were constitutionally mandated.
There has been little activity in this case since the consent decree entered. On December 14, 2006, an inmate filed a motion for a finding of civil contempt because the Commissioner had violated the consent decree. On September 10, 2008, another inmate filed a complaint for enforcement of the consent decree. Both of those matters terminated without any finding that the DOC had violated the terms of the consent decree. There is no indication that there have been issues with the DOC not abiding by the consent decree’s terms.
The Commissioner now seeks the termination of that consent decree because the DOC wishes to modernize MCI-Cedar Junction’s the law library. In 2007, the DOC began implementing a system of electronic legal reference materials at all of its facilities. That system is now online at seventeen of eighteen facilities in Massachusetts. MCI-Cedar Junction is the sole outlier. The system has been installed at MCI-Cedar Junction. In order to avoid violating the consent decree, the DOC has not made the switch from the existing library to the electronic system at that location.
The DOC made the switch to electronic reference materials for a number of reasons. The DOC determined that an electronic system would be less expensive in the long run. Additionally, an electronic system is easier to maintain and update. It also requires staff to spend less time updating the reference materials. An electronic system also allows the DOC to save space in its facilities because it will no longer need to store a significant number of volumes at each facility. Moreover, electronic reference materials cannot be lost, stolen, or defaced by inmates, problems
2

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 18 Filed 03/13/14 Page 3 of 4
the DOC has experienced. This enhanced availability ensures that more inmates will be able to use the resources.
Donna Godinmessier, the DOC’s Manager of Library Services, states that the materials available in the electronic system are different titles than those called for by the consent decree. Nonetheless, she states that the electronic materials are comparable, and in some cases superior, to the materials called for in the consent decree. Additionally, she states that some of the materials required by the consent decree are no longer in print. She also states that the vendor, LexisNexis, is required to provide training to inmate library clerks, who will assist other inmates.
Consent decrees are final judgments. Accordingly, they are subject to Rule 60(b)(5), which authorizes a court to relieve a party from a judgment or order if “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.”1 In order to obtain relief from a consent decree under the rule, “a party must ‘establish that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.’”2
This court is satisfied that a significant change in circumstances has occurred in the nearly forty years that have elapsed since it approved the consent decree. At the time the consent decree was entered, West Group was one of only a few publishers of legal reference materials and most of the materials required by the consent decree are West materials. Today, there are a plethora of legal reference materials available. Many of these materials may be comparable to or better than those ordered by the consent decree and available at a more competitive price. More significantly, an electronic legal reference system was simply not a possibility at the time the consent decree was entered.
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). 2 United States v. Puerto Rico, 642 F.3d 103, 106 n.5 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992)).
3

Case 1:73-cv-01083-JLT Document 18 Filed 03/13/14 Page 4 of 4 There is no evidence in the record that the DOC has failed to comply with the consent decree or is trying to avoid its obligations. Instead, the DOC is attempting to meet its constitutional obligation to ensure inmates’ access to the courts in an up-to-date and efficient manner. Finally, it would be inequitable to force the DOC to maintain an entirely different legal reference system at one of its eighteen facilities. For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s Motion to Terminate Consent Decree [#15] is ALLOWED. The consent decree entered on October 10, 1974 is hereby TERMINATED.3 This case shall remain CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph L. Tauro United States District Judge
3 Because this court concludes that termination of the consent decree is warranted under Rule 60(b)(5), it need not consider whether the PLRA mandates the consent decree’s termination.
4

 
 Case: 1:73-cv-1083 As of: 11/06/2016 10:00 PM EST 1 of 3
United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:73−cv−01083−JLT

CLOSED

Stone et al v. Boone Assigned to: Judge Joseph L. Tauro Cause: JS 44 Sec. IV − no matching citation currently in database
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/14/2006 Date Terminated: 12/14/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Julian T. Stone Deceased, 1999. TERMINATED: 02/23/2009

represented by Julian T. Stone PRO SE

Plaintiff Andrew W. Kilburn

represented by Andrew W. Kilburn M.C.I. Cedar Junction 2405 N. Main Street P.O. Box 100 Walpole, MA 02071 PRO SE

Plaintiff Charles E. Caine

represented by Charles E. Caine W−34359 MCI Cedar Junction P.O. Box 100 South Walpole, MA 02071 PRO SE

V. Defendant John O. Boone TERMINATED: 02/23/2009 Defendant Commissioner Kathleen M. Dennehy
Defendant Harold W. Clarke Defendant Commissioner Luis Spencer Department of Correction 50 Maple Street Suite 3 Milford, MA 01757

represented by David J. Rentsch Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Correction 70 Franklin Street Suite 600 Boston, MA 02110 617−727−3300 ext.142 Fax: 617−727−7403 Email: david.rentsch@massmail.state.ma.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Rentsch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:73-cv-1083 As of: 11/06/2016 10:00 PM EST 2 of 3

Date Filed 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 03/06/2007
03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/29/2007
04/05/2007 04/05/2007 04/10/2007 04/20/2007 05/09/2007 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/22/2008 09/23/2008 09/24/2008

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Contempt For the Defendants Violation of the "Consent Decree" Ordered by this Court on 10/10/1974 by Andrew W. Kilburn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Abaid, Kim) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
Civil Case Terminated. (Abaid, Kim) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
2 Judge Joseph L. Tauro : PROCEDURAL ORDER entered. The clerk shall serve the defendants by mailing a copy of Kilburn's motion, by first class mail, to (1) Attorney General Martha Coakley, McCormack Building, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108; and (2) Nancy White, General Counsel, Department of Correction Legal Division, 70 Franklin Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02110. The Commonwealth shall file a reply and/or opposition within fourteen days of the service of Kilburn's motion.(PSSA, 4) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by David J. Rentsch on behalf of Kathleen M. Dennehy (Rentsch, David) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
4 MOTION for exemption from LR 7.1(A)(2) by Kathleen M. Dennehy.(Rentsch, David) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
5 MOTION for Extension of Time to 04/13/2007 to File Response/Reply as to 1 MOTION for Contempt by Kathleen M. Dennehy.(Rentsch, David) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
Judge Joseph L. Tauro : Electronic ORDER entered granting 4 Motion for Exemption from LR 7.1(A)(2). 5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 1 MOTION for Contempt Responses due by 4/13/2007. NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES WILL BE ALLOWED. (Abaid, Kim) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
6 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1 MOTION for Contempt filed by Kathleen M. Dennehy. (Rentsch, David) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
7 AFFIDAVIT of Beverly Veglas re 6 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion by Kathleen M. Dennehy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, pt. I# 2 Exhibit 1, pt. II# 3 Exhibit 2)(Rentsch, David) Modified on 4/6/2007 (Abaid, Kim). (Entered: 04/05/2007)
8 Judge Joseph L. Tauro : ORDER entered 1 Motion for Contempt is DENIED. (Abaid, Kim) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
9 MOTION for Extension of Time to May 2007 to Respond to the Defendant's Opposition, MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Order on Motion for Contempt by Julian T. Stone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Abaid, Kim) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
Judge Joseph L. Tauro : Electronic ORDER entered denying 9 Motion for Extension of Time, denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
10 MOTION to Substitute Parties by Charles E. Caine.(Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
11 COMPLAINT for Enforcement of Consent Decree against Harold W. Clarke, John O. Boone, filed by Charles E. Caine. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−V)(Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
12 AFFIDAVIT by Charles E. Caine. (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
13 Letter requesting docket sheet from Charles E. Caine, Jr.. (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE − All documents filed with the US District Court on 9/10/2008 must be served on the Defendant before they will be considered by the Court for ruling. (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
DOCKET SHEET sent to Charles Caine, Jr. (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

Case: 1:73-cv-1083 As of: 11/06/2016 10:00 PM EST 3 of 3

10/08/2008 02/23/2009 01/31/2014 01/31/2014 01/31/2014 03/13/2014

14 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Executed by Charles E. Caine. Harold W. Clarke served on 9/19/2008. Acknowledgement filed by Charles E. Caine. (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: Electronic ORDER entered 10 Motion to Substitute Party is ALLOWED WITHOUT OPPOSITION. John O. Boone and Julian T. Stone terminated (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
15 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Terminate Consent Decree by Luis Spencer.(Rentsch, David) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
16 MEMORANDUM in Support re 15 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Terminate Consent Decree filed by Luis Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Rentsch, David) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
17 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 15 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Terminate Consent Decree filed by Luis Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Rentsch, David) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
18 Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioners Motion to Terminate Consent Decree 15 is ALLOWED. The consent decree entered on October 10, 1974 is hereby TERMINATED. This case shall remain CLOSED. ( See ORDER for Details ). IT IS SO ORDERED (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 03/13/2014)