Onesha Dixon v. Department of Correction (SPR 20251919)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 10, 2025 SPR25/1919 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Massachusetts Department of Correction 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Onesha Dixon, of Prisoner Legal Services, appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 5, 2025, Ms. Dixon requested “all records (including but not limited to documents, spreadsheets, and statistical reports) regarding the Health Services Units (HSUs) in Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities and the Correctional Unit at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital (LSH).” Specifically, “[f]or each HSU operated by DOC and for LSH,” Ms. Dixon sought the following: [1] For the period from January 1, 2024, through the date these records are produced, the total number of incarcerated individuals classified to each HSU, or any unit within it, through the application of “Code G” during the classification or re-classification process or residing in such units pending reclassification to that unit, on the 1st of each month. Include their race, gender, and age. [2] For the period January 1, 2024, through the date these records are produced, the total number of individuals residing in each HSU or a unit within the HSU, including LSH, on the 1st of each month who are considered “transient” or otherwise temporarily residing on the unit. [3] The number of beds in each HSU and LSH, broken down by type of HSU unit if applicable (eg: separating the number of beds in the Clinical Stabilization Unit vs the Nursing Care Unit at MCI-Shirley). Specify the number of these beds reserved for Therapeutic Supervision. [4] With respect to staffing in each HSU operated by DOC and LSH, please provide, broken down by facility and shift (eg: 7am-3pm, 3pm-11pm, 11pm-7am) One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727 5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Kate Silvia SPR25/1919 Page 2 July 10, 2025 and indicating whether it is a part-time or full-time position, the number of staff currently assigned to each of these units, including: a. The number of correctional staff, including their rank[;] b. The number of incarcerated workers[;] c. The number of medical staff, including their title[.] [5] The number of caseworkers, program staff, and other non-security DOC personnel broken down by position and hours assigned to the unit weekly. [6] Any and all policies, guidance, and other documents regarding the process of utilization review of requests for non-formulary medications, outside medical procedures, or specialty care referrals. [7] From July 1, 2024, through the date these records are produced, the number of requests submitted by VitalCore medical providers including the number approved, the number denied, and the number appealed for each of these categories: a. Non-formulary medications[;] b. Outside medical procedures[;] c. Electronic imaging performed at an outside medical center or hospital[;] d. Specialty care referrals[.] [8] The number of Requests for Reasonable Accommodations submitted by on or on behalf of a person in DOC custody and the outcome of those requests from January 1, 2024, to present, including the number approved at the facility level, the number denied at the facility level, the number appealed, and the outcome of those appeals. Please also provide any documents that reflect the average time between initial request and final outcome. [9] For each HSU, for the period from January 1, 2024, through the date these records are produced, broken down by month, please provide the total number of staff misconduct complaints initiated by incarcerated individuals housed in these units against DOC staff through confidential channels, staff misconduct and/or PREA hotlines, institutional grievances, or via other channels, and the outcome of these complaints. [10] Any and all spreadsheet and other documents tracking and or reflecting the number of medical grievances filed, the dates they were filed, the dates they were responded to, whether they were approved, partially approved, or denied, as well as the dates any appeals were filed, the dates they were responded to, and whether they were approved, partially approved, or denied.

Kate Silvia SPR25/1919 Page 3 July 10, 2025 [11] The total annual operating cost for each HSU broken down by type of expense including the cost of correctional staffing on outside medical trips. [12] From January 1, 2024 through the date these records are produced, the number of incarcerated individuals for whom a standardized cognitive assessment was performed, the specific type of assessment performed, the age and race of the individuals who received such assessments, and the number of individuals whose score indicates mild cognitive impairment, moderate cognitive impairment, and severe cognitive impairment [13] From January 1, 2024 through the date the records are produced, the number of guardianship petitions submitted regarding individuals in DOC custody and the number of people for whom guardians have been approved excluding petitions filed in order to obtain Rogers Orders. [14] From January 1, 2024 through the date the records are produced, any and all Department of Public Health inspection reports and responses to such reports from DOC regarding each HSU and LSH. [15] Any factual studies or reports regarding the need for additional HSU, CSU, or nursing care units or beds. [16] Any and all spreadsheets and other documents tracking and or reflecting the number of incarcerated individuals in HSU enrolled in programming. [17] Please provide the number of medical parole petitions filed by VitalCore medical providers on behalf of incarcerated individuals residing in an HSU, including: a. the number of those petitions granted by the commissioner[;] b. the number of those petitions that were denied[;] c. The number of those petitions still pending as of the date these records are produced[;] d. The current custody status of each individual for whom one of these petitions was granted[;] e. The number of individuals named in these petitions who have since died in custody and whether their petition was granted, denied, or pending at the time of death. [18] Please provide the number of medical parole petitions filed by DOC staff on behalf of incarcerated individuals residing in an HSU, including: a. the number of those petitions granted by the commissioner[;] b. the number of those petitions that were denied[;]

Kate Silvia SPR25/1919 Page 4 July 10, 2025 c. The number of those petitions still pending as of the date these records are produced[;] d. The current custody status of each individual for whom one of these petitions was granted[;] e. The number of individuals named in these petitions who have since died in custody and whether their petition was granted, denied, or pending at the time of death[.] The Department responded on May 28, 2025, May 29, 2025, and June 24, 2025, assigning the request reference number R000634-050525. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Dixon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1919, was opened as result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s May 28th, May 29th, and June 24th Responses On May 28, 2025, following an update inquiry from Ms. Dixon, the Department responded, “[w]e are aiming to have [the response] completed by next week. If need be, I can produce records on a rolling basis. We are currently backlogged due to the large volume of requests we receive. I should have [a] firmer update for you at the beginning of the week.” In its May 29, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[f]or [Items] 17 & 18 – Medical Parole Petitions are not tracked by the unit they reside in… Would you still like overall numbers of petitions?”

Kate Silvia SPR25/1919 Page 5 July 10, 2025 On June 2, 2025, Ms. Dixon replied, “[y]es, please provide the total number of petitions. If feasible, also indicate the facility in which each petitioner resided at the time the petition was filed.” Following two further update inquiries from Ms. Dixon, a Department official responded on June 24, 2025, “I have a meeting with Health Services today regarding this request and will have an update for you. If not all the records are in, would you like them on a rolling basis?” Ms. Dixon replied, “[y]es, that’s fine,” on the same day. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Dixon stated, “[t]o date, the agency has neither provided the requested records nor claimed that the records are exempt from disclosure.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Dixon’s request was submitted on May 5, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Dixon with a response to the request provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this

Kate Silvia SPR25/1919 Page 6 July 10, 2025 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Dixon may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Onesha Dixon