Preview
a 8
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX,SS Civil Action No.:
28 cvoigoo
JUSTICE AINOOSON, IN THE OFFICE OF THE.
Plaintiff, FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
Vv. AUG 2.4 2020
CAROL MICI, Commissio|
ABBE &. NELLIGAN, Diréctor 6
AP
partment of Corrections,
assitication,
SHEILA CREATON KELLY, De pe ty Superintendent of Reentry,
KERRY SMITH, Correctiona Progra Officer/Facility Designee
of Chkassifica : tion, .
Defendants.
° AMENDED VERIFIED CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
ii. INTRODUCTION:
‘The- plaintiff brings this civil action ‘complaint due to the
defendants' actions that exceed the scope of their duties utilizing
théir“policies’and regulations’ to supersede and circumvent the
plaintiff's statutory rights along with the plaintiff's state and
federal constitutional rights of Equal Treatment (along with the
defendants’ own regulatory Point Base System (PBS)).
II. JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the subject
matter pursuant to G.L. c. 231A § 1, G.L..c. 260 § 2 and 42 USC §
1983.
III. PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff Justice Ainooson, is and was'at all times_
relevantto this complaint a state prisoner housed within the care,
custody and jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, who is
now housed within the institution of MCI Concord, whose address: is,
965 Elm Street, Concord, MA 01742.
2. Defendant, Carol Mici,:took over as acting Commissioner of
the Department of Corrections. (DOC), who is responsible for the
re—a
custody
-—ca plaintiff
-of the nd alongwith creatingand — — — ---—~—_
establishing regulations that ate in compliance and consistent with
state statutes and constitution, along with the federal constitution.
Her duties are further identified in G.L. c. 124 § 1, whose address
is 50 Maple Street, MilfordMA 01757. She is being sued in her <°:
official and individual capacity.
1
3. Defendant ‘Abbe E. Nelligan, is and was at.all times relevant
to this complaint the Director of who
Classification’ is in charge of
the appellate por n
classifica
of tio tion and has the final determin-
ation of inmate classifica tion transfers, whose address is 50 Maple
Street, Milford MA 01757. She is being sued in her official and
individual capacity.
4. Defendant Sheila Creaton Kelly is the Deputy Superintendent
of reentry, whose duties are Americans with Disabilities Act Coor-
dinator, reviewing classifications at the institutional level and
the reentry of inmates, whose address is 965 Elm Street, Concord MA
01742. She is being sued in her individual and official capacity.
5. Defendant Kerry A. mith, is and was at all times relevant
to this complaint a Correctional Program Officer (CPO) and, Classif-
ication Facility Designee, whose address is, 965 Elm Street, Concord
MA 01742. She is being sued in her official and individual capacity.
Iv. STATEMENT OF FACTS
-
6. The defendants has previously acknowledged that the plaintiff
has a statutory right to be considered for a minimum security
institution, which also encompasses the plaintiff's right to equal
treatment.
7. The defendants had a minimum security institution designated
for inmates with long term:sentences like the plaintiff's, this
institution being MCL. Baystate.
8. The defendants placed a fence around BayuStateto allow
inmates such as the plaintiff to access a minimum security institution,
thus the defendants have established the allowance of access to a
minimum security institution for individuals such as the plaintiff.
9. The defendants have knowledge that the only statutory
restrictions that the plaintiff has is that he must spend a year in
a’maximum security institution.
10. The defendants' actions to-deprive the plaintiff of his
right to a step down process was gad is knowingly - committed by the
defendants.
11.The plaintifé was arrested on June 17, 2005. The plaintiff
was charged with murder and attempted murder and was held in custody
throughout the duration of pretrial and trial.
12° On or acound October 26, 2007, the plaintiff was acqiutted
of the charge of attempted murder (and all of the lessor offenses)
for one individual due to self-defense, but was found.-guilt of
second degree murder and sentence to 15 years to life for the other
individual, with the only statutory restrictions to his sentence
being that the plaintiff had to serve one year in a maximum
instution.
13. On October 26; 2007, the plaintiff was transferred to MCI
Concord, which was the classification institution at the time.
—~
2
“14. During November 2007 the plaintiff was transferred to MCI
Cedar Junction in Walpole Massachusetts, which was -a, maximum security
institution at the time.
15. The plaintiff was incarcerated in uct Cedar Junction until
around January 28, 2010.
16. Since Januaryof 2010 to the presen t the plaintiff has been
housed within = MCI Concord except for the period of
November 19, 2019 ‘through May
15, 2020), due to CI Concord was.
changed into a-long term housing institution during 2009 when MCI
Cedar Junction was transitioned into a classification institution,
.
which it presently still is.
17. On June 1, 2020, the plaintiff was seen by a.classification
board
2 which was only held due.:to the plaintiff's recent ruling within
Ainooson v. Lynds, et al., 16-02589-out of Middlesex Superior Court.
With Eva.Cunningham as board member 1 (who is also a CPO), CPO Kerry
Smith as the. chairperson and correctional officer Peter Tesini as
:
the Security Board Member.
18. During this reclassification hearing (which resembled more
of a mini public safety hearing/mini parole hearingthe ) plaintiff
was repeatedly questioned by. defendant Smith about his crime and
actions on the day that the fatal incident took place, along with
questioning the plaintiff about his level of remorse; instead of
focusing on his institutional record, his institutional adjustment,
rehabilitative progress and completed programming.
19; During the hearing Smith informed the plaintiff that it is
her who will be making the determination and due to the loss of
life that the plaintiff is convicted fori:mo matter how well. the
plaintiff has done, she is unable to and wont allow the plaintiff to
be considered for access to a step down process to access a. minimum
security institution and that the parole board will have to make
that determination. Referringto the DOC's Commissioner's actions of
designating that duty to the Massachusetts's Parole Board, thus”
requiring the parole board to act as a de facto classification board.
20. The plaintiff made verbal objections at the reclassifica-
tion hearing and informed Smith of the statutory and constitutional
violations that she was committing. Along with how the defendants'
policies and regulations once again conflict with the plaintiff's
statutory rights, legislative intent and further infringpag upon the
plaintiff's comstitutional rights.to equal treatment, due to the
defendants afford all other inmates (inluding. other inmates who are
serving second degree murder sentences) their right to a step down
peocess without having to be reclassed/stipulated by the
parole board acting in the capacity as a de facto classification
board. Thus depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to prove to
the parole board members that he can be successful andihave continuous
positive adjustment within a lower security institution. Smith
displayed deliberate indifference towards the plaintiff's statutory
and constitutional rights.
3
21. Smith replied that she will and’ must implement the
non-discretionary override to keep the plaintiff incarcerated within
a medium security institution, no matter how.much of a positive
adjustment that the plaintiff has continued to have over the years’
and no matter how much programs thet the has
plaintiff completed.
22. The plaintiff requested an appeal form when the
ee
reclassifi-
eH
eee eee ~ at
cation hearing was over.
23. On June 2, 2020, ‘the plaintiff submitted has appeal to
Smith. when she made her rounds around the unit.that the plaintiff
is housed in.
24. The plaintiff based his appeal on:(i) deprivation of Equal
rights; (ii) the defendants improperly utilizing the parole board as
a de facto reclassification board, thus the defendants has shirked
their statutory and regulatory duties while depriving the plaintiff -
of his statutory and cons itutional rights, (iii) the defendants'
es and
policy and regulations co ‘lict with Massachusetts's statut DOC's
al const ituio n and (iv) the
conflict with the state an d feder
us, subjectin g the plain tiff to
PBS being arbitrary an d capricio
h. conti nuous place ment in
violent and penologica 1 conditions throug
a higher security prison that he is not qualified for.
25. The plaintiff received a standard denial
tockis chassific-
ation appeal on June 6; 2020, denied by defenda nt Nelligan.who util-
de code H also . Defendant Kelly
ized the non-discretionary overri
also Zeviewed the plaintiff's appeal and suppor ted defendant Smith! 8
actions. t
26. The plaintiff flatted“ a letter to Carol Mici's office
about the violations, but has not received a response.
27. The plaintiff also forwarded letters to the defendants’
superior Thomas T urco III: (who is the-secretary of publi c safety
and the Attorney General's office.to noti. fy them of the defendants’
practices, Dut again, the plaintiff
violations and discriminatory
has not received a response.
28. The plaintiff has / exhausted all. administrative remedies
available to him.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION
COUNT I
29. Plaintifé invokes and incorporates paragraphs wl through
28 herein below:
Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly ‘and Smith's actions or omissions
violated the plaintiff's statutory rig ht to be considered for a step
down process by the defendants implemen tation of standard categorical
plaintiff, that intentionally deprives him of access
bars for the
4
part of
to.a step down process via mi nimum security which is a key
ies and
his rehabilitative process. T ne defendants created polic G.L.
reg utations to.supersede and/or circum vent G.L. c. 127 § 20A,
c. 265 § 2, along:with their own PBS, thus: rende ring their PBS
defendants’ act ions arbitrary and capricious. In
irrelevant and the
statutory an d regulatory rights as
eantlict with the pkdintiff's
served by G.L. c 2314.8 1.0
COUNT Ir
30. invokes and incorporates paragraphs 17 through -
Plaintiff
28 herein below:
Defendants Mici,: Nelligan, Kelly and Smith's actions or omissions
violated the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights of
equal treatment by applying an d implementing policies and
regulations
of restrictions that deprives the plaint iff f rom having access to
step down pr ocess which is afford ed
lower security institutions via a
to other inmates. Thus violating t he plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and Mass. Décl. of Rights Arts. 1, 10, and
11 as served by G.L. c. 260 § 2, 42 USC § 1983, G.L. c. 258,18 USC
§ 241 and 18 USC § 242.
COUNT IIL =
31. Plaintiff invokes and incorporates paragraphs i7. through
28 herein below: .
‘
Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly and Smith's a¢tions-‘or omissions
violated the plaintiff's statutory rights, due to .the Legislative
intent is for the DOC and the Parole.Board to serve as‘and be, separate
entities, as displayed via separate statutes that apply to each
entity. The defendants created policies and regulations that intent-
ionally shirks the defendants" duties upon the parole board, thus
essentially changing the parole board into a de facto classification
board, creating a violation of duties and statutes. The parole board
and DOC are separate entities for a reason and’ the parole boards'
duties are to determine likely candidates for parole permits, .while
the defendants! duties also focus on classification. Defendants'
actions violate the plaintiff's statutor y tights as served by G.L.
c. 231A § 1 and G.L. c. 260 § 2.
COUNT IV
32. Plaintiff invokes and incorporates paragr aphs :-17 through
:
28 herein below:
Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly and’ Smith's actions or omissions
violated the plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights by
inevitably increasing the plaintiff's time served by depriving the
plaintiff of access to a step down process which affords the plaintiff
an opportunity to prove to the parole board that he can be successful
within the confines of lower security. Due to the nature of the
plaintiff's sentence the parole board requires the plaintiff to-go
through the step down process to a minimum security, then prerelease
5
to transition to the community.-This ends up being an additional 12
to 24 months of time that could've been completed if the plaintiff
was afforded an opportunity to lower security before the plaintiff
sees the parole board. Violating the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and-Mass. Decl. “of Rights Arts. 1, 10 and
11, along with the. plaintiff's statutory rights4s pursuant to G.L.
c. 127 § 20A and G.L. c. 265 § 2 as served by G.L.
c. 260 § 2 and 42 USC § 1983. G.L. c. 258, 18 USC § 241 and 18 USC
§ 242.
COUNT V
2
33. Plaintiff invokes and incorporatesp. aragraphs 17 through
28 herein below:
Defendant Mici's actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's
statutory rights by exceeding her authority with the promulgation of
regukations that deprive the plaintiff of access to a step down
process ‘to lower security institutions, thus conflicting with
legislative intent. In violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights
as served by G.L. ec. 231A § 1.
COUNT VI
' 34. Plaintiff's invokes and incorporates paragraphs 17. through
28 herein below:
Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly and smith's actions or omissions
violated the plaintiff's regulatory right to have the defendants' PBS
correctly a lied during his-reclassification hearing for the purpose ‘
of consideration of a lower security institution. In violation of 103
CMR § 420 et seq: as served by G.L. c. 231A3§ 1.
VI. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the plaintiff requests the following relief:
A) Declare that the defendants! actions or omissions violated
the plaintiff's statutory rights;
B) Declare that. the plaintiff has a statutory right to be
considéred for a step down process to a lower security institution;
¢) Declare that the defendants' actions or omissions violated
the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights to Equal
Treatment;
D) Order the defendants to reclass the plaintiff and consider
him for a minimum security institution in compliance with their PBS;
=
E) Order the defendants to-cease and desist their acts of
violating the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights;
6
.
F) Order the defendants to conduct their functions of teclass-
ification and to. cease and desist shirking their duties and placing
their duties upon the Pagote Beard;
G) Order the defendants to cease and desist their actions of
utilizing the Parole Board as'a de facto classification board with
the goal of extending the plaintiff's time’ served;
H), Order the defendants to comply with legislative intent;
I) Order the defendants and. desist
to cease: their implementation
and enforcement of regulations and policies that conflict with the
statutory. rights of the plaintiff, which deprives him from his right
taube considered for a minimum. security institution/step down process;
J) Declare that the defendants' violations were conducted in
both their official and individual capacities;
K) Order punitive damages.against the defendants for the amount
of $250.00 per day for each day that they've extended the plaintiff's
time served by not allowing him to access a step down process to
prove to parole that he can be successful within those conditions.
inevitably depriving the plaintiff from completing the mandated step’
down process;
L) Order compensatory damages against the defendants inthe
amount of $500.00 per day that they've extended the plaintiff's time
served by not allowing.
him to access a step down process to prove to
i epriving:
arole that he canbe
him of the opportunity to
successful within
complete
those
his
conditions
mandated
inevitably
step down
precess before his parole hearing; :
M) Order nominal monetary damages aginst the defendants}
N) Issue a judgment that the plaintiff has a statutory right to
be considered for a step down process;
of.
0) Order the defendants to cease and desist .their us e 4 categor-
ical barsto deprive the plaintiff from accessing a step down process,
thus depriving the plaintiff of- his right to’ Equal Treatment;
P) Grant attorney and legal fees’ and costs with interest; and
Q) Order the defendants to pay -$10,000.00 for each violation as
pursuant to 18 USC § 241 for their acts of conspiracy against the
plaintiff's rights and 18 USC § 242 for their acts of deprivation of
the plaintiff's rights under the color of law. .
Date: Acgust | % yore Respectfully Submitted ;
€ Ainooson, pro se
W90887:
965 Elm Street
P.O. Box. 9106
Concord, MA 01742
All facts herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Date: August 182030
ice Ainooson
Preview
a 8 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX,SS Civil Action No.: 28 cvoigoo JUSTICE AINOOSON, IN THE OFFICE OF THE. Plaintiff, FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX Vv. AUG 2.4 2020 CAROL MICI, Commissio| ABBE &. NELLIGAN, Diréctor 6 AP partment of Corrections, assitication, SHEILA CREATON KELLY, De pe ty Superintendent of Reentry, KERRY SMITH, Correctiona Progra Officer/Facility Designee of Chkassifica : tion, . Defendants. ° AMENDED VERIFIED CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT ii. INTRODUCTION: ‘The- plaintiff brings this civil action ‘complaint due to the defendants' actions that exceed the scope of their duties utilizing théir“policies’and regulations’ to supersede and circumvent the plaintiff's statutory rights along with the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights of Equal Treatment (along with the defendants’ own regulatory Point Base System (PBS)). II. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the subject matter pursuant to G.L. c. 231A § 1, G.L..c. 260 § 2 and 42 USC § 1983. III. PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff Justice Ainooson, is and was'at all times_ relevantto this complaint a state prisoner housed within the care, custody and jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, who is now housed within the institution of MCI Concord, whose address: is, 965 Elm Street, Concord, MA 01742. 2. Defendant, Carol Mici,:took over as acting Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. (DOC), who is responsible for the re—a custody -—ca plaintiff -of the nd alongwith creatingand — — — ---—~—_ establishing regulations that ate in compliance and consistent with state statutes and constitution, along with the federal constitution. Her duties are further identified in G.L. c. 124 § 1, whose address is 50 Maple Street, MilfordMA 01757. She is being sued in her <°: official and individual capacity. 1 3. Defendant ‘Abbe E. Nelligan, is and was at.all times relevant to this complaint the Director of who Classification’ is in charge of the appellate por n classifica of tio tion and has the final determin- ation of inmate classifica tion transfers, whose address is 50 Maple Street, Milford MA 01757. She is being sued in her official and individual capacity. 4. Defendant Sheila Creaton Kelly is the Deputy Superintendent of reentry, whose duties are Americans with Disabilities Act Coor- dinator, reviewing classifications at the institutional level and the reentry of inmates, whose address is 965 Elm Street, Concord MA 01742. She is being sued in her individual and official capacity. 5. Defendant Kerry A. mith, is and was at all times relevant to this complaint a Correctional Program Officer (CPO) and, Classif- ication Facility Designee, whose address is, 965 Elm Street, Concord MA 01742. She is being sued in her official and individual capacity. Iv. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 6. The defendants has previously acknowledged that the plaintiff has a statutory right to be considered for a minimum security institution, which also encompasses the plaintiff's right to equal treatment. 7. The defendants had a minimum security institution designated for inmates with long term:sentences like the plaintiff's, this institution being MCL. Baystate. 8. The defendants placed a fence around BayuStateto allow inmates such as the plaintiff to access a minimum security institution, thus the defendants have established the allowance of access to a minimum security institution for individuals such as the plaintiff. 9. The defendants have knowledge that the only statutory restrictions that the plaintiff has is that he must spend a year in a’maximum security institution. 10. The defendants' actions to-deprive the plaintiff of his right to a step down process was gad is knowingly - committed by the defendants. 11.The plaintifé was arrested on June 17, 2005. The plaintiff was charged with murder and attempted murder and was held in custody throughout the duration of pretrial and trial. 12° On or acound October 26, 2007, the plaintiff was acqiutted of the charge of attempted murder (and all of the lessor offenses) for one individual due to self-defense, but was found.-guilt of second degree murder and sentence to 15 years to life for the other individual, with the only statutory restrictions to his sentence being that the plaintiff had to serve one year in a maximum instution. 13. On October 26; 2007, the plaintiff was transferred to MCI Concord, which was the classification institution at the time. —~ 2 “14. During November 2007 the plaintiff was transferred to MCI Cedar Junction in Walpole Massachusetts, which was -a, maximum security institution at the time. 15. The plaintiff was incarcerated in uct Cedar Junction until around January 28, 2010. 16. Since Januaryof 2010 to the presen t the plaintiff has been housed within = MCI Concord except for the period of November 19, 2019 ‘through May 15, 2020), due to CI Concord was. changed into a-long term housing institution during 2009 when MCI Cedar Junction was transitioned into a classification institution, . which it presently still is. 17. On June 1, 2020, the plaintiff was seen by a.classification board 2 which was only held due.:to the plaintiff's recent ruling within Ainooson v. Lynds, et al., 16-02589-out of Middlesex Superior Court. With Eva.Cunningham as board member 1 (who is also a CPO), CPO Kerry Smith as the. chairperson and correctional officer Peter Tesini as : the Security Board Member. 18. During this reclassification hearing (which resembled more of a mini public safety hearing/mini parole hearingthe ) plaintiff was repeatedly questioned by. defendant Smith about his crime and actions on the day that the fatal incident took place, along with questioning the plaintiff about his level of remorse; instead of focusing on his institutional record, his institutional adjustment, rehabilitative progress and completed programming. 19; During the hearing Smith informed the plaintiff that it is her who will be making the determination and due to the loss of life that the plaintiff is convicted fori:mo matter how well. the plaintiff has done, she is unable to and wont allow the plaintiff to be considered for access to a step down process to access a. minimum security institution and that the parole board will have to make that determination. Referringto the DOC's Commissioner's actions of designating that duty to the Massachusetts's Parole Board, thus” requiring the parole board to act as a de facto classification board. 20. The plaintiff made verbal objections at the reclassifica- tion hearing and informed Smith of the statutory and constitutional violations that she was committing. Along with how the defendants' policies and regulations once again conflict with the plaintiff's statutory rights, legislative intent and further infringpag upon the plaintiff's comstitutional rights.to equal treatment, due to the defendants afford all other inmates (inluding. other inmates who are serving second degree murder sentences) their right to a step down peocess without having to be reclassed/stipulated by the parole board acting in the capacity as a de facto classification board. Thus depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to prove to the parole board members that he can be successful andihave continuous positive adjustment within a lower security institution. Smith displayed deliberate indifference towards the plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights. 3 21. Smith replied that she will and’ must implement the non-discretionary override to keep the plaintiff incarcerated within a medium security institution, no matter how.much of a positive adjustment that the plaintiff has continued to have over the years’ and no matter how much programs thet the has plaintiff completed. 22. The plaintiff requested an appeal form when the ee reclassifi- eH eee eee ~ at cation hearing was over. 23. On June 2, 2020, ‘the plaintiff submitted has appeal to Smith. when she made her rounds around the unit.that the plaintiff is housed in. 24. The plaintiff based his appeal on:(i) deprivation of Equal rights; (ii) the defendants improperly utilizing the parole board as a de facto reclassification board, thus the defendants has shirked their statutory and regulatory duties while depriving the plaintiff - of his statutory and cons itutional rights, (iii) the defendants' es and policy and regulations co ‘lict with Massachusetts's statut DOC's al const ituio n and (iv) the conflict with the state an d feder us, subjectin g the plain tiff to PBS being arbitrary an d capricio h. conti nuous place ment in violent and penologica 1 conditions throug a higher security prison that he is not qualified for. 25. The plaintiff received a standard denial tockis chassific- ation appeal on June 6; 2020, denied by defenda nt Nelligan.who util- de code H also . Defendant Kelly ized the non-discretionary overri also Zeviewed the plaintiff's appeal and suppor ted defendant Smith! 8 actions. t 26. The plaintiff flatted“ a letter to Carol Mici's office about the violations, but has not received a response. 27. The plaintiff also forwarded letters to the defendants’ superior Thomas T urco III: (who is the-secretary of publi c safety and the Attorney General's office.to noti. fy them of the defendants’ practices, Dut again, the plaintiff violations and discriminatory has not received a response. 28. The plaintiff has / exhausted all. administrative remedies available to him. V. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I 29. Plaintifé invokes and incorporates paragraphs wl through 28 herein below: Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly ‘and Smith's actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's statutory rig ht to be considered for a step down process by the defendants implemen tation of standard categorical plaintiff, that intentionally deprives him of access bars for the 4 part of to.a step down process via mi nimum security which is a key ies and his rehabilitative process. T ne defendants created polic G.L. reg utations to.supersede and/or circum vent G.L. c. 127 § 20A, c. 265 § 2, along:with their own PBS, thus: rende ring their PBS defendants’ act ions arbitrary and capricious. In irrelevant and the statutory an d regulatory rights as eantlict with the pkdintiff's served by G.L. c 2314.8 1.0 COUNT Ir 30. invokes and incorporates paragraphs 17 through - Plaintiff 28 herein below: Defendants Mici,: Nelligan, Kelly and Smith's actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights of equal treatment by applying an d implementing policies and regulations of restrictions that deprives the plaint iff f rom having access to step down pr ocess which is afford ed lower security institutions via a to other inmates. Thus violating t he plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Mass. Décl. of Rights Arts. 1, 10, and 11 as served by G.L. c. 260 § 2, 42 USC § 1983, G.L. c. 258,18 USC § 241 and 18 USC § 242. COUNT IIL = 31. Plaintiff invokes and incorporates paragraphs i7. through 28 herein below: . ‘ Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly and Smith's a¢tions-‘or omissions violated the plaintiff's statutory rights, due to .the Legislative intent is for the DOC and the Parole.Board to serve as‘and be, separate entities, as displayed via separate statutes that apply to each entity. The defendants created policies and regulations that intent- ionally shirks the defendants" duties upon the parole board, thus essentially changing the parole board into a de facto classification board, creating a violation of duties and statutes. The parole board and DOC are separate entities for a reason and’ the parole boards' duties are to determine likely candidates for parole permits, .while the defendants! duties also focus on classification. Defendants' actions violate the plaintiff's statutor y tights as served by G.L. c. 231A § 1 and G.L. c. 260 § 2. COUNT IV 32. Plaintiff invokes and incorporates paragr aphs :-17 through : 28 herein below: Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly and’ Smith's actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights by inevitably increasing the plaintiff's time served by depriving the plaintiff of access to a step down process which affords the plaintiff an opportunity to prove to the parole board that he can be successful within the confines of lower security. Due to the nature of the plaintiff's sentence the parole board requires the plaintiff to-go through the step down process to a minimum security, then prerelease 5 to transition to the community.-This ends up being an additional 12 to 24 months of time that could've been completed if the plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to lower security before the plaintiff sees the parole board. Violating the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and-Mass. Decl. “of Rights Arts. 1, 10 and 11, along with the. plaintiff's statutory rights4s pursuant to G.L. c. 127 § 20A and G.L. c. 265 § 2 as served by G.L. c. 260 § 2 and 42 USC § 1983. G.L. c. 258, 18 USC § 241 and 18 USC § 242. COUNT V 2 33. Plaintiff invokes and incorporatesp. aragraphs 17 through 28 herein below: Defendant Mici's actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's statutory rights by exceeding her authority with the promulgation of regukations that deprive the plaintiff of access to a step down process ‘to lower security institutions, thus conflicting with legislative intent. In violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights as served by G.L. ec. 231A § 1. COUNT VI ' 34. Plaintiff's invokes and incorporates paragraphs 17. through 28 herein below: Defendants Mici, Nelligan, Kelly and smith's actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's regulatory right to have the defendants' PBS correctly a lied during his-reclassification hearing for the purpose ‘ of consideration of a lower security institution. In violation of 103 CMR § 420 et seq: as served by G.L. c. 231A3§ 1. VI. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the plaintiff requests the following relief: A) Declare that the defendants! actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's statutory rights; B) Declare that. the plaintiff has a statutory right to be considéred for a step down process to a lower security institution; ¢) Declare that the defendants' actions or omissions violated the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights to Equal Treatment; D) Order the defendants to reclass the plaintiff and consider him for a minimum security institution in compliance with their PBS; = E) Order the defendants to-cease and desist their acts of violating the plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights; 6 . F) Order the defendants to conduct their functions of teclass- ification and to. cease and desist shirking their duties and placing their duties upon the Pagote Beard; G) Order the defendants to cease and desist their actions of utilizing the Parole Board as'a de facto classification board with the goal of extending the plaintiff's time’ served; H), Order the defendants to comply with legislative intent; I) Order the defendants and. desist to cease: their implementation and enforcement of regulations and policies that conflict with the statutory. rights of the plaintiff, which deprives him from his right taube considered for a minimum. security institution/step down process; J) Declare that the defendants' violations were conducted in both their official and individual capacities; K) Order punitive damages.against the defendants for the amount of $250.00 per day for each day that they've extended the plaintiff's time served by not allowing him to access a step down process to prove to parole that he can be successful within those conditions. inevitably depriving the plaintiff from completing the mandated step’ down process; L) Order compensatory damages against the defendants inthe amount of $500.00 per day that they've extended the plaintiff's time served by not allowing. him to access a step down process to prove to i epriving: arole that he canbe him of the opportunity to successful within complete those his conditions mandated inevitably step down precess before his parole hearing; : M) Order nominal monetary damages aginst the defendants} N) Issue a judgment that the plaintiff has a statutory right to be considered for a step down process; of. 0) Order the defendants to cease and desist .their us e 4 categor- ical barsto deprive the plaintiff from accessing a step down process, thus depriving the plaintiff of- his right to’ Equal Treatment; P) Grant attorney and legal fees’ and costs with interest; and Q) Order the defendants to pay -$10,000.00 for each violation as pursuant to 18 USC § 241 for their acts of conspiracy against the plaintiff's rights and 18 USC § 242 for their acts of deprivation of the plaintiff's rights under the color of law. . Date: Acgust | % yore Respectfully Submitted ; € Ainooson, pro se W90887: 965 Elm Street P.O. Box. 9106 Concord, MA 01742 All facts herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. Date: August 182030 ice Ainooson