MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Hernan Cruz, an inmate at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution-Norfolk (MCI-Norfolk), appeals from a Superior Court judgment dismissing, on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, his complaint against various officials of the Department of Correction (DOC) seeking a declaratory judgment and judicial review of a DOC grievance decision.
3
We affirm the judgment of dismissal.
Background. On August 17, 2019, Cruz filed an inmate grievance requesting that certain legal documents, including “approximately 114 DOC policies, 33 [Code of Massachusetts Regulations] and 69 institution policies” that were “consistently removed” and “missing from the [MCI-Norfolk] law library” be made available to him as required by DOCs internal regulations. In his grievance, Cruz further suggested that DOC “use trained inmates as law clerks” to make those legal documents more readily available to inmates. DOC partially approved the grievance, to the extent that Cruz sought access to those legal documents, noting that inmates could borrow copies of them from the library, access them from the Norfolk legal advisory committee when the library is not open, and also obtain copies of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations from an online legal database.
4
To the extent that Cruz requested that DOC hire inmates as law clerks, DOC denied the grievance. Cruz appealed, and DOC affirmed the partial denial of the grievance.
Cruz sought judicial review in Superior Court, requesting relief including a declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478 and DOCs internal regulations by not making those legal documents available to inmates, and by not agreeing to hire inmates as law clerks. He now appeals from the dismissal of his complaint.
Discussion. We review inmate grievance appeals under G. L. c. 30A, § 14. See Grady v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 126, 130-132 (2013). To obtain relief, the party seeking review of the agency decision has the burden to show that his substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision is not supported by “substantial evidence” or is “[a]rbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7). See Carey v. Commissioner of Correction, 479 Mass. 367, 369-370 (2018), quoting Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind, LLC, 457 Mass. 222, 228 (2010) (“plaintiff challenging an agency interpretation has a ‘formidable burden’ ”). Cruz has not met his burden here.
In reviewing the decision of DOC, the motion judge was required, as are we, to “give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it by statute.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7). Where an agencys interpretation of its own regulation is at issue, we defer to the agencys interpretation unless it is “arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the plain terms of the rule.” Carey, 479 Mass. at 369-370, quoting Manor v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 416 Mass. 820, 824 (1994).
The motion judge concluded that DOCs decision as to how to make available to the inmate population the legal documents that Cruz sought in his grievance was a reasonable interpretation of the applicable regulations about inmate access to library materials.
5
We agree that Cruz has not met his burden to show that DOCs ruling on his grievance was unsupported by substantial evidence or not otherwise in accord with law. See Dexter v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Concord, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 329 (2015) (DOCs reasonable interpretation of regulations entitled to deference). Compare Ivey v. Commissioner of Correction, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 18, 25 (2015) (DOC has considerable discretion in adoption and implementation of prison policies).
Contrary to Cruzs argument, he did not demonstrate that the only satisfactory mechanism for DOC to fulfill its obligations to provide inmates with access to library materials would be for the MCI-Norfolk law library to hire inmate law clerks. As the judge noted, “While there may be a benefit in employing the use of an inmate [l]aw [c]lerk to help facilitate the distribution of the required documents[,] ․ that type of decision is something which is left to the discretion and expertise of the institutions decision making body.” Like the motion judge, we defer to the expertise of the agency to make that decision.
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
3
. Contrary to Cruzs claim on appeal that his complaint sought only a declaratory judgment, it also sought relief under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, “and any other Statutory ․ law that this Court may ․ deem proper,” and thus encompasses G. L. c. 127, § 38H, which provides for judicial review of final administrative decisions on inmate grievances.
4
. We note that, in his brief, Cruz quotes from many of the legal documents to which he sought access in his grievance and includes copies of some of them in his record appendix.
5
. See, e.g., 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478.04 (2017) (requiring copy of Code of Massachusetts Regulations to be maintained in inmate library); 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478.09(5) (2017) (requiring copies of DOC policies and internal regulations to be available to inmates); 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 478.10(3) (2017) (library materials may be made available online).