Gross v. Landry
| Decision Date | 14 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:17-cv-00297-JAW |
| Parties | BRANDON GROSS, Plaintiff v. SCOTT LANDRY, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
In this action, Plaintiff Brandon Gross, an inmate in the custody of the Maine Department of Corrections, alleges he is hearing disabled and that Defendant Scott Landry, the warden of the Maine Correctional Center, violated his rights by failing to accommodate Plaintiff's hearing disability.
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Order and Defendant Landry's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 16 & 30.) Through his motion, Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief.
Following a review of the summary judgment record, I recommend the Court grant Defendant's motion and deny Plaintiff's motion.
On January 19, 2018, the Department of Corrections downgraded Plaintiff's security classification from medium to minimum, and transferred Plaintiff from the Maine Correctional Center, the facility for which Defendant Landry serves as warden, to the Bolduc Correctional Facility. (Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (DSMF), ECF No. 31, ¶¶ 5, 7.) The chief administrative officer of the Bolduc Correctional Facility is the director, who is responsible for supervision and control of all prisoners, employees, grounds, buildings, and equipment at the facility. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Without citing to record evidence, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant Landry transferred Plaintiff as a retaliatory measure. (Responsive Statement ¶ 4, ECF No. 42.) Defendant Landry has denied the allegation of retaliation, and explained the process by which Plaintiff was transferred:
The Department of Corrections' classification system is overseen by the Department's Director of Classification. (Affidavit of Mary Lucia ¶¶ 3-5 and attached Policy 23.1, Classification System, page 2, Procedure A (1) (July 17, 2017).) On November 29, 2017, a unit management team conducted a regularly scheduled reclassification review for prisoner Brandon Gross. (Affidavit of Luke Monahan ¶¶ 2-4; Affidavit of Mary Lucia ¶ 3 and attached Policy 23.1, Classification System, page 5, Procedure C (1), Proedure D (1).) The unit management team recommended that prisoner Brandon Gross's custody level be reduced from Medium custody to Minimum custody and that Gross be transferred to any Minimum facility based on the fact that Gross was case management compliant, that he had completed numerous program[s] at Maine Correctional Center, that he had less than a year left on his sentence, that he needed to transition to working prior to his release, and his age, in spite of recent disciplinary reports and ongoing criminal thinking. (Affidavit of Luke Monahan ¶¶ 5-6; Affidavit of Mary Lucia ¶ 3 and attached Policy 23.1, Classification System, page 6, Procedure D (8), (12).) Brandon Gross's pending lawsuit played no role in the unit management team's recommendation. (Affidavit of Luke Monahan ¶ 7.) Defendant Landry was not involved in prisoner Gross's November 29, 2017, reclassification review and had no input in the unit management team's recommendation. (Affidavit of Luke Monahan ¶ 8.) The unit management team's recommendation was approved by the Assistant Director of Classification on December 19, 2017. (Affidavit of Luke Monahan ¶ 9; Affidavit of Mary Lucia ¶ 3 and attached Policy 23.1, Classification System, pages 6-7, Procedure D (14).)
(Reply Statement ¶ 4, ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Landry "is responsible for overseeing policies statewide," evidently suggesting that Defendant Landry retains responsibility for the provision of accommodations at the Bolduc Correctional Facility. (Responsive Statement ¶ 6.)
In his filings, Plaintiff also presented certain medical information, which includes the following progress note generated as the result of the care provided to Plaintiff by Defendant Correct Care Solutions following Plaintiff's transfer to the Bolduc Correctional Facility:
Pt presents for follow up. He notes a spinning feeling at night, decreased [h]earing and tinnitus in his right ear. We discussed that this is consistent with Meniere's disease. [description of medications] Mr. Gross was very pleased with today's visit and was very appreciative of medical's working with Security to have him on the Wake Up log. He had a good deal of anxiety with worrying about missing count.
(Progress Notes for February 15, 2018, ECF No. 42-1.) Plaintiff further asserts that he "has now been transferred to the Bolduc Correctional Facility and upon his arrival was properly seen by a doctor and diagnosed ... and properly accommodated ...." (ECF No. 43.)
Through his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Landry contends Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief against Defendant Landry are moot because Plaintiff is not currently assigned to the facility for which Defendant Landry is responsible.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matterof law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "After the moving party has presented evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, 'the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, with respect to each issue on which he has the burden of proof, to demonstrate that a trier of fact reasonably could find in his favor.'" Woodward v. Emulex Corp., 714 F.3d 632, 637 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir.1998)).
A court reviews the factual record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving evidentiary conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Hannon v. Beard, 645 F.3d 45, 47-48 (1st Cir. 2011). If a court's review of the record reveals evidence sufficient to support findings in favor of the non-moving party on one or more of his claims, a trial-worthy controversy exists and summary judgment must be denied as to any supported claim. Id. Unsupported claims are properly dismissed. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986) ().
Following a review of Plaintiff's complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, the Court authorized Plaintiff to proceed on his clams for deliberate indifference, and his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act. (Recommended Decision, ECF No. 19; Order Affirming the Recommended Decision, ECF No. 20.) The Court concluded Defendant Landry was an appropriate official capacity defendant for purposes of Plaintiff's plea for injunctive relief in the form of disability accommodations. (Recommended Decision at 9, ECF No. 19;Order Affirming the Recommended Decision, ECF No. 20.) Defendant Landry contends that because Plaintiff is no longer an inmate at the Maine Correctional Center, the claim against Defendant Landry is moot. (Motion for Summary Judgment at 1, 3 - 5.)
"The Constitution 'confines the jurisdiction of the federal courts to actual cases and controversies.'" Ford v. Bender, 768 F.3d 15, 29 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Barr v. Galvin, 626 F.3d 99, 104 (1st Cir. 2010)). "A case generally becomes moot when the controversy is no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Id. (quoting Shelby v. Superformance Int'l, Inc., 435 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2006)). "A prisoner's challenge to prison conditions or policies is generally rendered moot by his transfer or release." Id.
In Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit held that a prisoner's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials at a facility were mooted by the prisoner's removal from the facility. Id. at 272; see also Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008) (). Similarly, in an unpublished table opinion, the First Circuit held that a prisoner's challenge to a New Hampshire state prison policy was mooted by the prisoner's transfer to a Massachusetts prison. Stow v. Warden, N. H. State Prison, 21 F.3d 420 (1st Cir. 1994) (table).
Here, Plaintiff's official capacity claim against Defendant Landry is the sole claim on which Plaintiff was authorized to proceed against Defendant Landry following the Court's review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. When a state official is sued exclusively in an official capacity, the official is not subject to a money damageaward. Caisse v. DuBois, 346 F.3d 213, 218 (1st Cir. 2003). Because Plaintiff's only claim against Defendant Landry is one for injunctive relief, and because the uncontroverted record establishes that Plaintiff is no longer assigned to the Maine Correctional Center, where Defendant Landry serves as the warden, Plaintiff's claim is moot to the extent Plaintiff seeks to modify the conditions of confinement at the Maine Correctional Center.
Plaintiff argues, however, that a controversy remains because he wants Defendant Landry to expunge Plaintiff's disciplinary record, as the discipline imposed on Plaintiff has negatively impacted the calculation of his good time credits. (ECF No. 42 ¶ 9, citing Gates v. Towery, 430 F.3d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 2005) (); and Chapman v. Pickett, 586 F.2d 22, 26 - 27 (7th Cir. 1978) .1
...
To continue reading
Request your trial