Burr v. Bouffard
| Decision Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-00206-GZS |
| Parties | DOUGLAS BURR, et al., Plaintiffs v. RODNEY BOUFFARD, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Douglas Burr, an inmate at the Maine State Prison, and his wife, Rebbecca Burr,1 assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC), the Commissioner of the MDOC, and seven current or former employees of the Maine State Prison, alleging that Defendants violated their rights under the United States Constitution in connection with disciplinary proceedings at the prison.2 (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 3.) Additionally, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Douglas Burr asserts a claim for retaliation, and Rebbecca Burr asserts a claim for defamation. The matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14.)
Following a review of the pleadings and after consideration of the parties' arguments, I recommend that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiffs' amended complaint (Am. Complaint, ECF No. 3), as well as "from documents incorporated by reference into the complaint, matters of public record, and facts susceptible to judicial notice." Saccoccia v. United States, 955 F.3d 171, 172 (1st Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. United States, 871 F.3d 131, 135 (1st Cir. 2017) ; Kowalski v. Gagne, 914 F.2d 299, 305 (1st Cir. 1990) (). Plaintiff's factual allegations are deemed true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. McKee v. Cosby, 874 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir. 2017).
Douglas Burr is an inmate at the Maine State Prison. (Am. Complaint ¶ 1.) In June 2014, Defendant Burnham, a lieutenant at the prison, advised "Prison Administration" that she believed Rebbecca Burr was dealing and taking payments for drugs that Mr. Burr was trafficking in the prison. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 75.) On June 12, 2014, Defendant Ross, Deputy Wardenat the prison, directed that Mr. Burr be removed from the prison's general population and placed on Emergency Observation Status in the prison's Special Management Unit (SMU).3 (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ross' actions in removing Mr. Burr from the general population and placing him in the SMU violated the policies of the MDOC. (Id. ¶ 18.)
Plaintiffs assert that at the request of Defendant Ross on June 12, Corporal Mark Engstfield wrote a disciplinary report, which resulted in Mr. Burr's placement in the SMU. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs allege that Corporal Engstfield did not complete the disciplinary report on June 12 and included false information in the report. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 26-27.) As evidence that the report was not prepared on June 12, Plaintiffs assert that the disciplinary report identified Mr. Burr's housing unit as the unit to which he was assigned on June 17, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) The disciplinary report also stated that it was based on a separate "Confidential Report," although Corporal Engstfield did not obtain the confidential report until June 19, 2014. (Id. ¶ 25.)
Plaintiffs also allege several actions taken by Defendants regarding the disciplinary report and Mr. Burr's placement in the SMU violated MDOC Policy 20.1, entitled "Prisoner Discipline." (Id. ¶¶ 20-22, 28, 30-33; see ECF No. 14-6.) Plaintiffs assert that although MDOC Policy 20.1 requires all disciplinary reports to be delivered to a shift supervisor within 72 hours, Defendant Vigue, the shift supervisor, did not acknowledge the June 12 disciplinary report until June 19, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) After conducting hisreview of the report, Defendant Vigue did not dismiss the report as untimely. (Id. ¶ 33.) According to Plaintiffs, the MDOC's failure to provide Mr. Burr with a copy of the documents placing him on Emergency Observation Status and with notice of the reasons supporting this placement violated Policy 20.1. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.) The disciplinary report was not investigated until eight days after the alleged incident. (Id. ¶ 32.)
On July 14, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the June 12 disciplinary report. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs allege that the hearing violated MDOC Policy 20.1 and Mr. Burr's due process rights. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36, 38.) Plaintiffs contend that the hearing officer, Defendant Allan, had not been properly trained to conduct the hearing and that he and Defendant Abbott refused to provide Mr. Burr an opportunity to review or contest the evidence against him. (Id. ¶¶ 36-38.) Defendant Allan found Mr. Burr guilty of a disciplinary infraction. (Id. ¶ 39.) At some point in July 2014, the SMU supervisor recommended that Mr. Burr be released from the SMU, but Defendant Ross and the "Prison Administration" overruled the recommendation. (Id. ¶ 50.)
Mr. Burr appealed from the hearing officer's decision. (Id. ¶ 40.) On August 8, 2014, Defendant Ross denied the appeal and affirmed the July 14 decision. (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ross had a conflict of interest and violated MDOC Policy 20.1 because he was the individual who had originally directed the filing of a disciplinary report. (Id. ¶ 42.)
According to Plaintiffs, by October 2014, Mr. Burr had been in the SMU for 108 days, longer than the 30 days allowed by MDOC Policy 20.1. (Id. ¶¶ 47-48.) On October 1, 2014, the Maine Attorney General's Office advised Plaintiffs that MDOC wouldexpunge the record of the disciplinary action against Mr. Burr. (Id. ¶ 48.) Thereafter, MDOC continued to hold Mr. Burr in the SMU as a "security risk." (Id. ¶ 49.) In November 2014, the SMU supervisor advised the Prison Administration that he did not believe Mr. Burr was a security risk and that Mr. Burr had completed all available programming in the SMU. (Id. ¶ 51.) Plaintiffs allege that in February 2016, Defendant Burnham told Mr. Burr that he would not be released from the SMU until he admitted that he had committed the alleged June 12 disciplinary infraction.4 (Id. ¶ 52.)
On September 9, 2014, Mr. Burr filed a complaint in the Maine Superior Court seeking judicial review of the hearing officer's July 14 decision, see M.R. Civ. P. 80C, and asserting a claim under 42 USC § 1983 requesting injunctive relief.5 (Id. ¶ 45; see State Complaint, ECF No. 14-2.) Additionally, Mr. Burr asserted a separate § 1983 claim against Corporal Engstfield, seeking damages for the alleged falsification of the June 12 disciplinary report. (Am. Complaint ¶ 46; State Complaint at 8.) As to the Rule 80C appeal, Mr. Burr asked the court to determine that the defendants had "individually and jointly . . . violated the policies and procedures of the [MDOC] and violated [his] constitutional rights," and sought, in part, to be transferred to a different correctional center,"have his contact visits re-instated," and have the disciplinary infraction expunged from his record. (State Complaint at 7.) Mr. Burr, in his claim for injunctive relief, also asked the state court to order the defendants to stop holding him in the SMU, transfer him to a different prison, and award him attorney's fees. (Am. Complaint ¶ 45; State Complaint at 8.)
In March 2015, the state court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Rule 80C appeal and request for injunctive relief, concluding that Mr. Burr could not be held indefinitely in the SMU and that he had alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for injunctive relief pursuant to § 1983. See Burr v. Bouffard, No. AP-14-57, 2015 Me. Super. LEXIS 60 (Mar. 23, 2015). (See Judgment at 2-3, 14, ECF No. 14-1; Order on Sum. Judg. at 3, ECF No. 14-3.)
On May 10, 2016, Mr. Burr filed a joint Rule 80C brief, see M.R. Civ. P. 80C(g), and motion for partial summary judgment on his claims for injunctive relief and for damages against Corporal Engstfield. (See Judgment at 3; Order on Sum. Judg. at 2.) He argued that "the disciplinary process pursuant to which he was held in the [SMU] of the Maine State Prison for approximately 20 months violated his due process rights." (Order on Sum. Judg. at 2, ECF No. 14-3.) Mr. Burr also argued that "his placement in the SMU was an atypical and significant hardship that was carried out without following the procedures set out in Department regulations," and that MDOC's placement of him "in the SMU for approximately 20 months" was a deprivation of his due process rights. (Id. at 11-12.)
On January 26, 2017, the state court granted in part the Rule 80C appeal; the court reversed the 2014 disciplinary decision and expunged the decision from Mr. Burr's record.6 (Order on Sum. Judg. at 12, 18.) In doing so, the court considered the events surrounding the disciplinary review hearing, Mr. Burr's placement in the SMU, and the conditions of his confinement in the SMU. (Id. at 4-11.) In that same order, the court also entered summary judgment against Mr. Burr on his § 1983 claim against Corporal Engstfield, concluding that (Id. at 14, 18.) As to Mr. Burr's request for injunctive relief pursuant to § 1983, the court requested additional briefing as to whether the claim was moot because, at that point in the proceedings, he had been released from the SMU.7 (Id. 17-18.) The court also requested clarification as to the injunctive relief Mr. Burr requested. (Id.)
On September 24, 2019,...
To continue reading
Request your trial