Kauffman, 413 Mass. 1010 (Mass. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Kauffman, 413 Mass. 1010 (Mass. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: EDWARD PIERCE (massappct, 2025-01-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EDWARD PIERCE
Mass. App. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Relatedly, in two cases arising out of deprivations of liberty in civil proceedings, the court held that a habeas corpus petition could not be used to raise an issue that was open on direct appeal, even if the issue was not raised in the appeal that was taken, Lamb, petitioner, 368 Mass. 491, 496 (1975) (Lamb) (SDP proceeding), or even if no appeal was taken, Kauffman, petitioner, 413 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1992) (Kauffman) (guardianship proceeding leading to residential placement).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evicci v. Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
In re Coffman, 413 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dutil
Mass. · 2002 · confidence medium
A habeas corpus proceeding is not the proper forum for these claims, because “a petitioner for habeas corpus must show that he or she is entitled to be released from restraint by the particular respondent or respondents named in the petition.” Kauffman, petitioner, 413 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1992), quoting Hennessy v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Framingham, 386 Mass. 848, 852 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Pierce
Mass. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kauffman, petitioner, 413 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1992) ("petitions for writs of habeas corpus may not be used to raise issues that should have been raised on appeal" [emphasis added]); Dirring, petitioner, 344 Mass. 522, 523 (1962) (concluding that writ of habeas corpus was unavailable to petitioner who could have but failed to raise suppression issue by "appropriate appellate procedure"); Crystal, 330 Mass. at 590-591 (concluding that writ of habeas corpus was available even though petitioner "could have appealed from the contempt decree" because of "exception" to general rule that habeas is n…
discussed Cited "see" DARRIEN GOETZENDANNER
Mass. App. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kauffman, petitioner, 413 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1992) (writ of habeas corpus "may not be used to raise issues that should have been raised on appeal").
cited Cited "see" Lightbody v. Superintendent of Massachusetts Correctional Institution
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kauffman, petitioner, 413 Mass. 1010 , 1011 & n.4 (1992); Lamb, petitioner, 368 Mass. 491, 496 (1975); Crystal, 330 Mass. at 590 (and cases cited).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Kauffman, (and a consolidated case)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Dec 15, 1992.
413 Mass. 1010
Ellen L. Nelson (John M. Coyne with her) for the petitioners., Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for Behavior Research Institute, Inc., & others., Kenneth V. Kurnos & Alan J. Glass, for Massachusetts Association of, Approved Private 766 Schools, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief., Bettina A. Briggs, guardian ad litem, was present but did not argue.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

We consider whether two wards, subject to permanent guardianship and under substituted judgment treatment plans, may petition the court for writs of habeas corpus. See G. L. c. 248, § 35 (1990 ed.). In the Probate and Family Court Department, the respondents moved to dismiss the habeas corpus petitions. The probate judge allowed the motions. The petitioners appealed. The Appeals Court consolidated the two cases for the purposes of briefing and oral argument. We allowed the petitioners’ applications for direct appellate review. We affirm the dismissal of the habeas corpus petitions.

[*1011] The two petitioners involved are patients at Behavior Research Institute, Inc. (BRI), a residential program that makes use of aversive treatments.[3] Each has been the subject of a guardianship proceeding and each is currently under a substituted judgment treatment plan, which the Probate Court supervises. Neither petitioner appealed from the guardianship proceedings or the proceedings determining the treatment plan.

Both petitioners filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus and requested equitable relief. The petitioners claimed that they were being “illegally and unlawfully restrained of [their] liberty” at BRI. Each petitioner asserts that his confinement at BRI against his will was without due process of law, in violation of G. L. c. 248, §§ 35-36, and therefore that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should have been allowed. Neither petitioner sought immediate release; rather, both wanted alternate placements.

Under G. L. c. 248, § 35 (1990 ed.), “[n]o person shall be deprived of his liberty or held in custody by any person or in any place against his will ... except by due process of law.” “Habeas corpus is the historic remedial process whenever it appears that one is deprived of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States.” O’Leary, petitioner, 325 Mass. 179, 184 (1950). Where there is a right of appeal, however, habeas corpus “cannot be employed as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure.” Crowell v. Commonwealth, 352 Mass. 288, 289 (1967). Consequently, petitions for writs of habeas corpus may not be used to raise issues that should have been raised on appeal. See Dirring, petitioner, 344 Mass. 522, 523-524 (1962) (no habeas corpus relief granted where petitioner did not bring an alleged error below before the court through appropriate appellate procedure).

“[A] petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus must show that he or she is entitled to be released from restraint by the particular respondent or respondents named in the petition.” Hennessy v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Framingham, 386 Mass. 848, 852 (1982).[4] The petitioners are not requesting that they be released immediately. Instead, they wish to[*1012] be placed elsewhere. The dismissal of the habeas corpus petitions by the probate judge was correct.

Ellen L. Nelson (John M. Coyne with her) for the petitioners. Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for Behavior Research Institute, Inc., & others. Kenneth V. Kurnos & Alan J. Glass, for Massachusetts Association of Approved Private 766 Schools, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Bettina A. Briggs, guardian ad litem, was present but did not argue.

Judgments affirmed.

3

Aversive treatments include pinching, squeezing, spanking, cold sprays, physical restraint, and electric shocks. One device used to administer electric shocks is called SIBIS (self-injurious behavior inhibiting system). A second device, the graduated electronic decelerator (GED), administers stronger electrical shocks. Staff of BRI may administer the shocks by remote control should the ward behave in a prohibited manner.

4

A petitioner requesting habeas corpus relief also must show that she or he has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. See Construction Indus, of Mass. v. Commissioner of Labor & Indus., 406 Mass. 162, 166 (1989). The judge determined that the petitioners did have other remedies available to them. In the view we take, we need not discuss this issue. The petitioners set forth no basis for equitable relief other than a disagreement with the guardianship and treatment plan proceedings, both of which they could have appealed.