Gladu v. Me. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00449-JDL
• Parties: NICHOLAS GLADU, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

NICHOLAS GLADU, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants

No. 1:20-cv-00449-JDL

United States District Court, D. Maine

June 8, 2022

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT/ ORDER ON OTHER MOTIONS

John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Gladu and Anthony Hardy, inmates at the Maine State Prison, allege various claims arising out of the conditions of their confinement while assigned to the prison's Special Management Unit.

Defendants Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC), Randall Liberty, Matthew Magnusson, Anthony Cantillo, Troy Ross, Heather Richardson, Harold Abbott, and Kyle Ruffner (collectively, the MDOC Defendants) move to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law tort claims, and for summary judgment on all federal claims brought by Plaintiff Hardy. (MDOC Motion, ECF No. 140.) The MDOC Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of certain MDOC policies and other documents. (Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 147.) Defendants Wellpath LLC, James Fine, M.D., ^[1] Robyn Hodges, Psy.D., Jascha

1

Propp, Psy.D., and Amanda Seirup, Psy.D. (collectively, the Wellpath Defendants) move to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims. (Wellpath Motion, ECF No. 146.)

After Defendants filed their dispositive motions, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 162.) Plaintiffs also requested that exhibits from the first amended complaint be “attached” to the second amended complaint. (Motion to Attach Exhibits, ECF No. 163; see Exhibit 1, ECF No. 68-1.)

Following a review of the record and after consideration of the parties' arguments, I grant the MDOC Defendants' motion for judicial notice, grant in part Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and grant Plaintiffs' motion regarding the exhibits to the second amended complaint. I also recommend the Court grant in part the MDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismiss as moot their motion to dismiss, and dismiss as moot the Wellpath Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Procedural Background

Plaintiffs^[2] filed their original complaint on December 2, 2020. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint on May 19, 2021 (Motion to Amend, ECF No. 62), ^[3] which motion the Court granted on June 30, 2021. (Order, ECF No. 67; see

2

First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 68.) After a review of the first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2), I recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act against all defendants except MDOC, dismiss Plaintiffs' claims brought under the Civil Rights Act, dismiss the state law damages claims against Defendant MDOC, dismiss all claims against Defendants Liberty, Thornell, Newby, and Ritter, and permit Plaintiff to proceed on their other claims against the remaining defendants. (Recommended Decision at 6, ECF No. 75.) On Plaintiffs' objection to the recommended decision, the Court adopted the recommendation, with one exception, concluding that Plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim against Defendant Liberty, in his official capacity only, for violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Order on Recommended Decision at 3, ECF No. 104.)

MDOC Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

The MDOC Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the following MDOC documents in connection with their motion to dismiss and their motion for summary judgment: (1) Disciplinary Restriction Special Management Housing Policy 15.04, (2) Administrative Control Unit Policy 15.05, and (3) Resident Personal Hygiene, General Guidelines 17.03, as well as individual profiles of Plaintiffs Gladu and Hardy from MDOC's website. (Motion, ECF No. 147.) Pursuant to Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court “may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can

3

be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” In addition, “[t]he court . . . must take judicial notice [of adjudicative facts] if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)(2) (emphasis added). The documents offered by the MDOC Defendants satisfy the requirements of Rule 201(b). The Court, therefore, takes judicial notice of the documents.

Motion to Amend Complaint and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss

Through their motion to amend, Plaintiffs seek to (1) amend some of their factual allegations, (2) add a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), against Defendant Wellpath, (3) add a claim for a civil conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against Defendants Liberty, Thornell, Magnusson, Ross, and Cantillo, (4) add a habeas corpus claim, and (5) remove their state law claims.

A court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend is properly denied for “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). After consideration of the parties' arguments, as discussed below, I grant in part Plaintiffs' motion to amend and Plaintiffs' request to attach the exhibits from the operative complaint to the second amended complaint. Because Plaintiffs' second amended complaint removes the state law claims Plaintiffs asserted in the first amended complaint, which claims are the subject of Defendants' motions to dismiss, Defendants' motions to dismiss are moot.

4

A. Timeliness of Motion to Amend

The MDOC Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion because Plaintiffs filed the motion more than a year after their original complaint. (Response to Motion for Leave to Amend at 2-3, ECF No. 177.) Plaintiffs first expressed an intention to file a second amended complaint before any of the defendants filed a response to either the original complaint or the first amended complaint. (See Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 139.) Furthermore, because the Court was required to conduct a preliminary review of Plaintiffs' claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, and because the Court had to address numerous motions and issues related to all the original plaintiffs, the Court has not yet issued a scheduling order. Discovery, therefore, has not commenced. Under the circumstances, the Court discerns little, if any, prejudice to the MDOC Defendants based on the timing of the motion.^[4]

B. Futility of the Amendment

The MDOC Defendants and the Wellpath Defendants also argue that many of Plaintiffs' proposed amendments would be futile. A “futile” amendment is one that “would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Hatch v. Dep't for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001). In other words, “if the proposed

5

amendment would be futile because, as thus amended, the complaint still fails to state a claim, the district court acts within its discretion in denying the motion to amend.” Boston & Me. Corp. v. Hampton, 987 F.2d 855, 868 (1st Cir. 1993). When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).

Plaintiffs assert they have been assigned to the Special Management Unit A-2 in the MSP, referred to as the “segregation unit” or “SMU.” (Proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) ¶ 68.) Plaintiffs allege they are permitted only one hour of outside recreation per day and are often locked in their cells for twenty-four hours. (Id. ¶¶ 68, 74(a), 183(f).) Plaintiffs maintain that prisoners in the unit are permitted one ten-minute weekly phone call, and they have no access to certain media (e.g., radio, television), or educational services or programming. (Id. ¶¶ 69, 74, 107(g), 123-24, 183(g).) At times, prisoners have no access to library reading materials; Plaintiffs have not received the mail they ordinarily receive while in the general prison population, including magazines. (Id. ¶¶ 130-35.)

Plaintiffs assert that they have several medical conditions, including conditions that affect their mental health. (Id. ¶¶ 36-41, 55, 64.) According to Plaintiffs, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities states that seriously mentally ill prisoners should not be confined under conditions of extreme isolation for more than thirty days. (Id. ¶ 46.) MDOC policy provides for weekly and monthly reviews of prisoners in solitary confinement, but

6

Plaintiffs have been denied the reviews. (Id. ¶¶ 70-72.) Plaintiffs allege Plaintiff Hardy has been in solitary confinement for most of his sentence and that Plaintiff Gladu has been placed in the SMU for many months at a time. (Id. ¶¶ 65, 67, 75, 78, 81.) Plaintiffs assert that because of their mental health conditions, they act erratically, resulting in disciplinary infractions, fines, and extended time in the segregation unit. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60, 62, 75-81.) Plaintiffs allege that they have been denied adequate mental health resources and treatment and their mental health has suffered due to their protracted assignment to solitary confinement. (Id. ¶¶ 58, 64, 67, 111-12, 115, 183(i).)

Plaintiffs contend Dr. Fine conducted a...