On January 20, 2012, prisoners incarcerated in Massachusetts administrative segregation filed this class action in state court in Massachusetts. Represented by the Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, the plaintiffs sued the Commissioner of Correction and superintendents of various correctional facilities for violations of their federal and state due process rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the prison held the plaintiffs in segregation without informing them of a release date or opportunities to obtain release. The plaintiffs received only one hour out of their cell each weekday, ate their meals alone in their cells, and were allowed only non-contact visits with family members. The proposed class included “all prisoners held in non-disciplinary segregation in an SMU [special management units].” The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief alongside their request for class certification.

On January 31, 2013, Judge Elizabeth Fahey of the Superior Court of Massachusetts granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. That opinion argued that LaChance v. Commissioner, a 2013 case regarding administrative segregation, resolved the claim. 2013 WL 9925512 (Mass. Super.).

The plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court, however, on July 22, 2015, dismissed the case as moot; all but one of the named plaintiffs had been released from administrative segregation and the remaining plaintiff had been released while the appeal was pending. According to that decision, forthcoming guidance from the Department of Corrections in response to LaChance would “frame unresolved issues.” 87 Mass. App. Ct. 629. The dissent argued that the case was not moot as the alleged wrongful conduct continued to impact the putative class. Moreover, the dissent continued that the court should not wait for the still unissued regulations required by LaChance; those new regulations were not anticipated to address all the claims alleged in Cantell.

On December 7, 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the state's highest court—granted leave to appeal. On March 10, 2016, the court heard oral arguments. Then, on October 21, 2016, the court reversed and remanded the appellate decision. In its opinion, the court held that the regulations and procedural rights afforded people incarcerated in the Departmental Segregation Unit [DSU] applied to this class held in administrative segregation. Thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to file their motion to certify a class in Superior Court.

On remand, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add new plaintiffs and to allege noncompliance with the federal due process procedures that the Supreme Judicial Court established in LaChance. The court accepted the Second Amended Complaint on February 2, 2017. On June 23, 2017, the court granted the motion for class certification. The class comprised all prisoners who were then or would be in the future confined in Non-Disciplinary Restrictive Housing status (formerly known as SMUs) within the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.

On May 21, 2019, the parties moved to approve a settlement agreement. The agreement included programmatic relief such as mandated reviews of restricted housing placements for each person incarcerated there, an expectation that a prisoner should not be confined in nondisciplinary restrictive housing for more than 30 days, provisions for an appeals process, and educational and other rehabilitative-related programming. Since initiation of the litigation, the Massachusetts Legislature had passed the Act Relative to Criminal Justice Reform, which took effect on December 31, 2018. The parties incorporated the reforms into the agreement that pertained to solitary confinement. The agreement also included a provision on quarterly reporting to Class Counsel. Furthermore, according to the agreement, the court’s jurisdiction would terminate at the end of the two-year settlement period and the agreement included provisions to manage potential non-compliance. The defendants agreed to pay attorneys’ fees and costs to Prisoners’ Legal Services in total of $60,000.

We know from conversation with plaintiffs' counsel that the case settled in 2019. However, we don't know the structure of the approval process. The case is ongoing.

Lily Sawyer-Kaplan - 11/13/2019


compress summary