Incarcerated men sue Mass. parole board, arguing hearing delays are unconstitutional

Seven men serving prison sentences in Massachusetts are suing state officials, arguing delays scheduling their parole hearings violated their constitutional rights under state law that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk, cites a state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision that declared it unconstitutional for judges to sentence anyone younger than 21 to life without the possibility of parole.

Their attorneys argue the men are among more than 100 people incarcerated in the state who, under the high court’s landmark ruling last year for so-called “emerging adults,” should be eligible for parole.

The attorneys say the vast majority of those people — including their clients — have yet to be granted initial parole hearings. So far, eight people have been granted parole as a result of the high court’s Commonwealth v. Mattis decision.

The lawsuit, citing the Committee for Public Counsel Services, estimated that fewer than two dozen initial parole hearings were held in the last year. Mara Voukydis, director of the committee’s parole advocacy unit, said in the lawsuit that roughly 80 others are expected to one day become eligible for parole thanks to the ruling.

Some of their clients, the lawyers wrote in the court filing, have served several decades in prison. The delays, they argued, have caused the men “irreparable harm.”

The suit names Gov. Maura Healey, Terrence Reidy, secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security and Tina Hurley, chair of the Massachusetts Parole Board as defendants. It also lists the Massachusetts Parole Board.

In a statement Wednesday, a spokesperson said the parole board would weigh "additional options to expedite" Mattis hearings, but did not describe the options.

The board also described the parole process as "complex" and wrote that it works "diligently to schedule and conduct hearings efficiently while upholding the integrity of the process and ensuring that all parties are adequately prepared."

The governor's office on Thursday referred WBUR to the parole board for comment.

Attorney Lisa Newman-Polk, who is representing three of the plaintiffs, said her clients decided to sue to “make a systemic change” and push the parole board “to work more efficiently.”

She said the state needs to provide more resources to the parole board to help it effectively do its work.

In the aftermath of the SJC decision, she said her clients were initially hopeful and now have faced a “really, really stressful experience” in what she called a “continuous waiting game.”

“It's really challenging to have been offered or told that you have this opportunity,” she said, “and it's not just the clients. It's their family and their friends.”

“To keep people incarcerated where we're paying over $100,000 a year to incarcerate them rather than having them in the community to be contributing taxpayers in society is just an absolute waste,” she added.