The Department of Correction is refusing to reveal the names of the inmates who received payouts from a $6 million class-action lawsuit, the state’s largest settlement last year.
The $6.75 million settlement — $5.75 million for 150 prisoners, and the remaining $1 million for attorneys’ costs and fees — was related to a high-profile altercation at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley.
In early 2020, several inmates at the maximum-security prison assaulted correction officers, resulting in serious injuries to four officers. Sixteen prisoners were charged in the attack.
Following the assault, the prison was placed in secure status for nearly a month, as tactical responses were carried out in an effort to restore order to the facility.
Inmates as a result filed a class-action suit, calling it “a brutal and lengthy campaign of excessive force and unconstitutional treatment.”
That class-action lawsuit eventually led to the $6.75 million settlement, which was distributed in varying amounts to the 150 current and formerly incarcerated individuals.
That $6.75 million settlement represents the Bay State’s largest payout in the last fiscal year, according to the Office of the Comptroller’s database.
The Herald has been seeking more details about the state’s biggest settlement, requesting the names of the inmates who received payouts — and the specific settlement amounts for each inmate.
But the Department of Correction is withholding that information from the public.
The lack of transparency from DOC is “deeply disappointing,” according to the correction officers’ union.
“In a self-described era of transparency from the Department of Correction, it is deeply disappointing that the DOC is not releasing this information,” the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union said in a statement. “We certainly hope that none of the inmates who attacked our Correction Officers are being rewarded for their violent actions.
“The $6 million the state released should have been used to improve safety protections inside the state’s prisons,” the union added. “Our calls, for years, to improve security have been ignored by the DOC, so once again we call on the leadership to set their priorities on protecting the COs who have the most dangerous jobs in the state.”
DOC in its response to the Herald’s public records request cited the safety of inmates and their families.
“The names of incarcerated individuals who received compensation because of a settlement agreement may be withheld from public disclosure based on statutory exemptions… as disclosures ‘could endanger the privacy or safety of the subject individuals,’ ” a DOC spokesperson wrote.
“… The disclosure of personal information, including the identification of incarcerated individuals and the specific settlement amount disseminated to each, could lead to the location and identity of relatives, making them potential targets for threats in an attempt to obtain settlement funds for illicit purposes,” the DOC spokesperson added. “These individuals’ rights to protection against an unwarranted intrusion of privacy outweigh the public’s interest where that invasion of privacy places them in physical and financial danger.”
DOC also argues that publishing the specific monetary amount for each inmate could spark “safety and security concerns” inside the prison.
Other inmates could use the monetary information to threaten the compensated individual unless he shares the money, DOC says.
The state agency also notes that the records have criminal offender record information (CORI) in them. Outside of law enforcement representatives, CORI access is limited.
“As explained by the Supervisor of Public Records: ‘Access to records which satisfy the definition of CORI is restricted pursuant to the CORI Act as it operates through exemption (a),’ the DOC spokesperson wrote. ‘The responsive… records necessarily contain CORI as they concern an identifiable individual and relate to their incarceration. Therefore, the CORI Act… will allow the Department to withhold the responsive… information.’ “
In the class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs said the officers in a “Retaliatory Force Campaign” attacked more than 100 prisoners using “extreme, malicious, and cruel methods of force.”
This included officers: beating and kicking prisoners; gouging eyes; smashing faces into the ground or wall; deploying Taser guns, pepper ball guns, and other chemical agents; ordering K9s to menace and bite prisoners; and more.
Following the January 2020 incident, DOC says it launched a thorough review. This process led to the first amendments to its Use of Force Regulations since 2009.
Those changes to the Use of Force policy included: enhanced training on de-escalation and duty to intervene, clearer guidance on the use of restraints, and revised activation protocols for the Special Operations Response Unit (SORU). Whenever the SORU team is activated, the Video Response Team automatically documents the response.
DOC implemented a Body-Worn Camera Program, requiring correction officers to activate cameras when responding or as a witness to critical incidents and emergencies, such as assaults, suicide attempts, deaths, fires, escapes, or uses of force.
Original article
Comments