In a unanimous published opinion reversing the dismissal, a three-judge panel said that Darius Gibson, who represented herself pro-se at oral arguments, should have her suit against the state's department of corrections revived because she had sufficiently alleged that her state or federal rights were violated, "or that an attempt was made to interfere with them, and that the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation, or coercion."
Gibson, who was held at the North Central Correctional Institution at Gardner, Massachusetts, claimed she submitted a request to prison librarian Carolyn Murphy for photocopies of documents related to her public records request for ballistic evidence to challenge her conviction but was wrongfully denied.
The panel explained that it was the prison's policy to only provide copies to inmates "in connection with litigation challenging a criminal conviction or conditions of confinement, and not in connection with other civil matters, including public records requests."
The DOC regulation in question, states that "photocopying services shall be for the purpose of duplicating original legal documents."
After Gibson was denied, she asked Murphy to photocopy a grievance she was filling over the refusal to make copies. In response, Murphy allegedly "said, loudly in front of other inmates, '[G]o ahead and rat on me rat snitch it does not do anything,'" the panel recounted.
The next day, Gibson talked to Matthew Divris, the superintendent of the prison, explaining that her records request was for a legal purpose, and she was trying to exonerate herself. According to the court, Gibson wanted to show the ballistic evidence she requested to a private ballistics investigator she hired as part of an ineffective counsel argument she wanted to make.
Divris allegedly decided to use Gibson's request for copies to bargain with her, asking, "[H]ow much do you want your freedom[?] What are you going to do for me[?]," according to court filings. He then asked Gibson to be an informant. After she agreed, she got the photocopies, the panel said.
Although Gibson "rescinded her agreement to be an informant shortly thereafter" and didn't provide any information, the panel said that the fact that she was allegedly asked to participate in this quid pro quo was sufficient to allege Divris violated her civil rights, so her claim against him shouldn't have been dismissed, the panel said.
Similarly, "the complaint states a plausible claim that Gibson had a constitutional right to obtain the photocopies she requested," the panel said.
She claimed that the DOC regulations surrounding library services, and the prison's interpretation of the rules limiting copies, was being used "to deny inmates access to the courts," which was constitutionally mandated, the panel said.
It didn't matter that Gibson had been transferred to another men's prison, the panel said, explaining that the state couldn't show that she might not be transferred back to the same prison and face the same challenges.
"Moreover, the challenged DOC regulation still applies to her, and she has alleged that it may limit her access to copies in the future," the panel said.
The panel said that "by denying inmates photocopies of documents necessary to pursue public records requests related to their criminal convictions, the DOC regulation and the NCCI-Gardner policy may hinder their efforts in pursuing legal claims."
The state DOC regulation and the prison's policy "may be unconstitutional insofar as they are interpreted in a manner that denies inmates photocopies of petitions for public records for information to challenge their convictions," the panel said, reviving Gibson's civil rights violation claim against Divris and her claim for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the constitutionality of the DOC regulation and corresponding Gardner policy.
Gibson could not be reached for comment. Representatives for the DOC did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Wednesday.
Associate Justices Gregory I. Massing, Vickie L. Henry and Marguerite T. Grant sat on the panel for the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Gibson is representing herself in the case.
The Department of Correction and its officials are represented by Daryl F. Glazer.
The case is Darius Gibson v. Department of Correction et al., case number 23-P-1048, in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
--Editing by Dave Trumbore.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
