Latimore v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 627

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT VINCENT POON'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT THREE (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_________________________________________
)
JASON LATIMORE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
VINCENT POON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )

Civil Action No.
14-13481-FDS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT VINCENT POON’S
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT THREE
SAYLOR, J.
This action arises out of an alleged attack on a prisoner by a correctional officer at the
Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk (“MCI-Norfolk”). The complaint alleges that
on November 2, 2011, defendant Vincent Poon repeatedly slammed the door to plaintiff Jason
Latimore’s cell on his hands and arms, severely injuring him.
Count Three of the second amended complaint asserts a claim for relief under Article 26
of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Specifically, plaintiff contends that defendant
violated Article 26 (freedom from cruel or unusual punishments). Defendant previously moved
for summary judgment as to Count Three, contending plaintiff is precluded from claiming
damages directly under the Declaration of Rights. With some doubt as to whether there is a
private right of action for such a claim, the Court denied that motion, concluding that the
complaint states a claim for violation of Article 26.
In light of this Court’s recent decision in Pimentel v. City of Methuen, 323 F. Supp. 3d

255 (D. Mass. 2018), defendant has renewed his motion for summary judgment as to Count
Three.
In Pimentel, this Court concluded: “The SJC has never held that there is a right of action
to enforce the Declaration of Rights. It did suggest, 35 years ago, in dicta, that such a right
‘may’ be available. . . [However] [n]o Massachusetts appellate court, in the 35 years since
Phillips [v. Youth Dev. Program, Inc., 390 Mass. 652 (1983)], has ever held that such a right
exists.” 323 F. Supp. 3d at 273-74. In light of this history, the Court held that “it is emphatically
not the role of the federal courts to develop and expand upon state law. If this Court were to
conclude that such a right existed, no Massachusetts court would have an opportunity to consider
that decision—including, among other things, an opportunity to consider the wisdom of the
policy embedded in such a decision and the potential consequences for litigants and the courts.
It is up to the courts of Massachusetts, not this Court, to make that choice.” Id.
Because the Court finds there is no private right of action under Article 26, defendant’s
supplemental motion for summary judgment as to Count Three is GRANTED.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: October 19, 2018

2