── Negron v. Superintendent, Northeastern Correctional Center ──
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date: May 22, 2026
Category: General
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030;
[email protected]
SJC-13888
JOSE L. NEGRON vs. SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, & another.1
May 22, 2026.
Commissioner of Correction. Imprisonment, Grievances.
Mandamus.
The plaintiff, Jose L. Negron, appeals from the judgment of
a single justice of this court denying his request for relief in
the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 5. We
affirm.
At the time of his complaint, the plaintiff represented
that he had been granted parole pending his completion of a term
at a minimum security facility of the Department of Correction
(department).2 His complaint alleged that while at that
facility, he and other parolees unduly were denied participation
in a program pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 49, that would allow
1 Commissioner of Correction.
2 Before this court, the plaintiff represents that he has
since been transferred to a higher security facility, where his
access to materials with which to litigate his case has been
limited. In a motion filed on March 5, 2026, the plaintiff
requested that this court effect service of his filings and that
he receive free postage or, alternatively, access to
"photocopies, legal material, legal supplies, and assistance."
For the reasons described herein, the single justice did not
abuse his discretion or err in denying relief. As the plaintiff
was not entitled to relief in this proceeding, his motion is
denied.
2
them to work outside the facility in the community, where they
could earn better wages. The complaint alleged that inmates
serving sentences who had not received grants of parole were
nevertheless permitted to participate in that program. It
asserted that disparate and unequal access to the work release
program for parolees as compared with nonparolees violated the
plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process and equal
protection and, further, that it violated G. L. c. 127, § 49, as
well as other Federal and State statutes and department
regulations. Relatedly, the complaint asserted that parolees
and nonparolees at the same facility should not be housed
together. Pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 5, the complaint sought
relief in the nature of mandamus. Specifically, it asked the
single justice to order the defendants to remedy the alleged
unequal access to the work release program and to house parolees
and nonparolees separately. The single justice denied the
requested relief, concluding that the plaintiff's allegations
did not present a "failure of justice" warranting relief in the
nature of mandamus. Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010,
1010 (2006), quoting Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020
(1999). Presently before this court is the plaintiff's appeal
from the judgment of the single justice.
We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the
single justice's denial of relief. See Laura v. A Justice of
the Dist. Court Dep't, 496 Mass. 1030, 1031 (2025). Where a
plaintiff seeks relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to
G. L. c. 249, § 5, "relief is available only where the
[plaintiff] demonstrates the absence of an adequate and
effective alternative remedy." Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478
Mass. 1020, 1020 (2018). Here, the plaintiff could have filed a
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under G. L.
c. 231A, § 1. See Grady v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Mass.
App. Ct. 126, 135-137 & n.9 (2013). Moreover, the plaintiff
could have sought relief through the grievance process described
in