MROD

Massachusetts Appeals Court Summary Dispositions Pursuant to Rule 23.0 (formerly Rule 1:28)

Docket Number - 24-P-0823main content

 Back 
 

Case Details

JOSHUA CARRIER vs. JAMES RIOUX & others.
5/9/2025
Please use your browser search to search within the document
 

Document Content

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-823
JOSHUA CARRIER
vs.
JAMES RIOUX & others.
1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Joshua Carrier, appeals from a judgment
entered after a Superior Court judge allowed the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, thereby affirming a
decision of the Department of Correction (department) denying
the plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodations to his
cell based on his height.
2
We affirm.
1
James O'Gara and the Massachusetts Department of
Correction.
2
The plaintiff also appealed from an order denying his
postjudgment motion for an enlargement of time to file a motion
for reconsideration. As the plaintiff made no argument
addressing this order in his briefing, we do not consider it
further. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481
Mass. 1628 (2019).
2
Background. In 2021, the plaintiff, an inmate at Old
Colony Correctional Center (OCCC), made a request for reasonable
accommodations under the department's Reasonable Accommodations
for Inmates policy, 103 DOC 408 (2018), implementing the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq., and similar state law provisions. The plaintiff, who is
six feet, seven inches tall, described his disability as "too
tall for normal items" and requested an extended mattress and
changes to the desk and chair inside his cell. OCCC's deputy
superintendent and acting ADA coordinator, defendant James
Rioux, denied the plaintiff's requests because (1) he already
had a longer mattress, which was in good condition, and had been
authorized by the medical department to obtain an additional
mattress, and (2) the seat and desk could not be modified
because of "security reasons." The plaintiff appealed Rioux's
decision to the department's ADA coordinator for inmates,
defendant James O'Gara. After consulting with OCCC's health
services administrator, who consulted with medical providers at
the facility, O'Gara denied the appeal on the ground that the
plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had a "diagnosed
impairment" entitling him to accommodations under the ADA.
The plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review in the
Superior Court under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, requesting that the
3
defendants "redo" his ADA request and approve the accommodations
he had requested. He also requested a declaration under G. L.
c. 231A, § 1, that he has a disability that affects at least one
of his daily life functions, that he is "covered" by the ADA,
and that he is entitled to accommodations. Acting on cross
motions for judgment on the pleadings, the judge entered
judgment for the defendants, affirming the department's denial
of the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff appeals.
Discussion. Our review of an order allowing judgment on
the pleadings is de novo. See Sullivan v. Superintendent, Mass.
Correctional. Inst., Shirley, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 766, 775
(2022). That is, we review the same administrative record as
the Superior Court judge and reach our own determination whether
the defendants are entitled to judgment. See Miller v.
Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Shirley, 99 Mass. App.
Ct. 395, 400-401 (2021).
Where, as here, an inmate has filed a grievance against
prison officials concerning conditions of confinement and has
exhausted administrative remedies, the inmate may seek judicial
review of the decision under G. L. c. 30A, § 14. See
Fitzpatrick v. Department of Correction, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 617,
619 (2023); Sullivan, 101 Mass. App. Ct. at 772; Davis v.
Commonwealth, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 398, 399 (2019); Grady v.
4
Commissioner of Correction, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 126, 131-132
(2013). Only the final decision of the agency, in this case
O'Gara's denial of the plaintiff's appeal, is subject to
judicial review. See Paquette v. Department of Envtl.
Protection, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 844, 847 (2002). We may set aside
or modify the department's decision only if we determine the
decision "exceeded the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
the agency, was based on an error of law, was made upon unlawful
procedure, was unwarranted by facts found in the record . . . ,
or was arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law." Fitzpatrick, 102 Mass.
App. Ct. at 619, citing G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).
The plaintiff contends that the department's failure to
recognize his height as a disability was erroneous as a matter
of law and not supported by the facts in the administrative
record, which showed that a standard bed was too short for him
to sleep and that he was unable to sit at the desk in his cell.
Although we are sympathetic to the plaintiff's claims, the
record does not permit us to conclude that the department's
decision is reversible under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).
As relevant here, the ADA's definition of "disability" is
"a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). The
5
department's policy likewise defined a "disabled inmate" as
"[a]n inmate who has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities." 103
DOC § 408.02 (2018).
3
Assuming for the purposes of this appeal
that the plaintiff's height substantially limits his ability to
sleep in a bed that is too short and to eat or type at the fixed
desk and chair in his cell, and that these are major life
activities, the plaintiff's claim falters on the requirement
that these activities be limited by a "physical or mental
impairment."
The ADA does not define what qualifies as a physical
impairment, but the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's regulations implementing the ADA do, as follows:
"Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic
disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body
systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense
organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular,
reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory,
hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine." 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(h)(1) (2011). While we are not aware of any
3
As of January 2025, the policy replaced the definition of
"disabled inmate" with a definition of "incarcerated individual
or civil commitment with a disability," which has essentially
the same definition. 103 DOC § 408.02 (2025).
6
authoritative decision on point,
4
the majority of decisions
considering whether obesity qualifies as a physical impairment
conclude that it is not, unless it is caused by a physiological
disorder. "Taken as a whole, the relevant statutory and
regulatory language makes it clear that for obesity to qualify
as a physical impairment -- and thus a disability -- under the
ADA, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or
condition." Morriss v. BNSF Ry. Co., 817 F.3d 1104, 1109 (8th
Cir.), cert denied, 580 U.S. 875 (2016). Accord Richardson v.
Chicago Transit Auth., 926 F.3d 881, 887–888 (7th Cir. 2019)
(collecting cases). The defendants could have reasonably
concluded that the same reasoning applied to height.
The plaintiff does not allege, and the record does not
demonstrate, that his height is the result of a physiological
disorder or condition. Accordingly, the department's
determination that the plaintiff did not have a "diagnosed
impairment," and was not entitled accommodations on that basis,
appears to be correct as a matter of law and supported by the
record. The Superior Court judge's decision, affirming the
department's action on the plaintiff's request for
4
Of the very few unpublished trial court decisions we have
found that discuss allegations similar to the plaintiff's, all
concluded that height was not a qualifying disability under the
ADA.
7
accommodations and denying declaratory relief, must therefore be
affirmed.
5
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion for
enlargement of time to file
motion for reconsideration
affirmed.
By the Court (Massing,
Neyman & Wood, JJ. ),
6
Clerk
Entered: May 9, 2025.
5
We note that the initial decision to deny the plaintiff's
request for an extended mattress was based, in large part, on
the fact that he already had one, and that a second mattress had
already been preapproved. We were advised at oral argument,
however, that, in an effort to provide higher quality mattresses
throughout the plaintiff's facility, the department had given
the plaintiff a too-short mattress, but we were reassured by
department counsel's representation that this was a mistake,
that a ninety-inch-long mattress had been ordered, and that the
plaintiff would receive the new mattress forthwith. Nothing in
this decision, which is limited to the plaintiff's claim for
accommodations under the department's ADA policy, should be
understood to relieve the department of its obligation to act
consistently with counsel's representation.
6
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.