Jaundoo v. Clarke

Decision Date22 February 2010
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 08-10977-JLT.
Citation690 F. Supp.2d 20
PartiesRoy JAUNDOO, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth W. CLARKE, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

James A. Bello, Morrison, Mahoney LLP, Brandon L. Bigelow, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Stephen G. Dietrick, MA Department of Correction, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

Carolyn B. French, James C. McGrath, Thomas Peter R. Pound, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER

TAURO, District Judge.

This court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the January 22, 2010, Report and Recommendation # 51 of Chief Magistrate Judge Dein. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, this court hereby orders that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemented Complaint #43 is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiff's motion is ALLOWED to the extent that it seeks to dismiss all claims against Defendant Jeffrey Grimes and to add claims for deliberate indifference in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Rosalie K. Berry, Jacquelyn Bernard, and John Kearnen. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent that it seeks to add claims of negligence and medical malpractice against University of Massachusetts Correctional Health and Rosalie K. Berry and to add claims of supervisory liability and failure to train.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

DEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 30, 2008, plaintiff Roy Jaundoo ("Jaundoo") brought this action against various officials and employees of the Massachusetts Department of Correction ("DOC") and UMass Correctional Health Service ("UMCH"), claiming that the defendants unlawfully deprived him of necessary medical care by confiscating his crutches while he was an inmate at MCI-Cedar Junction. At the time Jaundoo initiated the lawsuit, he was proceeding pro se. However, on May 26, 2009, this court issued an order appointing counsel to represent him in this matter. Subsequently, Jaundoo, through his counsel, filed a "Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemented Complaint and for Relief from Local Rule 15.1(B)" (Docket No. 43) by which he was seeking to amend his complaint to add additional claims and defendants, and to obtain relief from the requirements of Local Rule 15.1(B). The court ordered additional briefing and oral argument addressing whether the proposed amendments would be futile. (See Docket Entry dated 9/10/09). That issue is now ripe for decision.

For all the reasons set forth below, this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend be ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) all claims against defendant Jeffrey Grimes be DISMISSED; (2) the motion to add claims of deliberate indifference against defendants Rosalie K. Berry, RN, Jacquelyn Bernard and John Kearnen be ALLOWED; (3) the motion to add claims of negligence/medical malpractice against defendants UMCH and Nurse Berry be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, recognizing the plaintiff's right to assert its claims against UMCH in state court; and (4) the motion to add claims of supervisory liability and failure to train be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Thus, this court recommends that the case proceed only as to Count II of the First Amended Complaint.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Where, as here, a motion to amend is opposed on grounds of futility, the "proposed amendment `is gauged by reference to the liberal criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).'" Transwitch Corp. v. Galazar Networks, Inc., 377 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.Mass.2005) (quoting Hatch v. Dep't for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts set forth in the proposed amended complaint, and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See id.; Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir.1999). In doing so, the "court may not consider any documents that are outside of the proposed amended complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein" unless they fall within the narrow exception "for documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; for official public records; for documents central to the plaintiff's claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint." Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2001) (quotations and citation omitted).1 Applying this standard to the instant case, the relevant facts are as follows.

The Parties

Plaintiff Jaundoo is currently incarcerated at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley, Massachusetts. (FAC ¶ 1).2 At the time of the events giving rise to this action, Jaundoo was an inmate at MCI-Cedar Junction. (See id. ¶¶ 15-42). Both facilities are operated by the DOC. (Id. ¶ 1).

The existing defendants include five officials or employees of the DOC (the "DOC defendants") and two employees of UMCH (the "UMCH defendants"). (See Verified Compl. (Docket No. 1) at 3-5). The DOC defendants include Harold W. Clarke ("Clarke"),3 Peter St. Amand ("St. Amand"), John Jones ("Jones"), John Brodbeck ("Brodbeck") and Jeffrey Grimes ("Grimes"), and the UMCH defendants include Mark Waitkevich ("Waitkevich") and Arthur Brewer, M.D. ("Brewer"). (Id.). By his proposed amended complaint, Jaundoo is seeking to drop his claims against Grimes, and to assert new claims against DOC employee John Kearnen ("Kearnen"), UMCH, UMCH employees, Rosalie K. Berry, RN ("Berry") and Jacquelyn Bernard ("Bernard"), and UMCH Program Medical Director "Doe." (See FAC ¶¶ 2-12).

Throughout the relevant time period, defendant Clarke was the Commissioner of Correction for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 2). In his capacity as Commissioner, Clarke allegedly was responsible for the appointment, supervision and training of DOC employees, and for ensuring that Massachusetts prisons were operated in compliance with federal and state law. (Id.). Additionally, Clarke was responsible for the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations governing the prison system, including policies and rules pertaining to inmate medical care, discipline and sanctions. (Id.).

Jaundoo alleges that at all relevant times, Amand was the Superintendent, Jones was the Deputy Superintendent and Brodbeck was the Director of Security at MCI-Cedar Junction. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5). The plaintiff further alleges that each of these defendants was responsible for the management and operation of the facility, including the care, custody and treatment of prisoners; the enforcement of policies, rules and regulations; the training of all MCI-Cedar Junction employees in accordance with prison policies, rules and regulations; and the institution's compliance with federal and state law. (Id.). Proposed defendant Kearnan was a correctional officer at MCI-Cedar Junction at the time of the events giving rise to this action. (Id. ¶ 6).

Proposed defendant UMCH is a program of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, which has a principal place of business in Westborough, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 7). UMCH provides medical services to inmates in the custody of the DOC, including inmates at MCI-Cedar Junction, pursuant to an agreement between the Medical School and the DOC. (Id.). During the relevant time period, defendant Brewer was the Program Medical Director of UMCH. (Id. ¶ 8). In that capacity, Brewer was responsible for the appointment, supervision and training of UMCH employees, as well as for the promulgation of UMCH's policies, rules and regulations. (Id.). Allegedly, Brewer was also responsible for ensuring that UMCH medical services were provided in accordance with the applicable policies, rules and regulations, and in compliance with the requirements of the law. (Id.). Proposed defendant "Doe" is the current Program Medical Director of UMCH. (Id. ¶ 9).

Defendant Waikevich and proposed defendants Berry and Bernard are employees of UMCH. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12). During the relevant time period, Waikevich was the Health Services Administrator, Berry was a registered nurse and Bernard was a nurse at MCI-Cedar Junction. (Id.). Jaundoo alleges that Berry and Bernard were responsible for providing medical care to inmates at the facility. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11).

The Alleged Initial Injury to Jaundoo's Knee

Jaundoo alleges that in June 2007, during his confinement at MCI-Cedar Junction, he tore the patellar tendon in his left knee. (Id. ¶ 15; see also id. ¶ 16). As a result of his injury, Jaundoo underwent knee surgery at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital. (Id. ¶ 16). Following the surgery, medical staff at the hospital instructed Jaundoo to use crutches for ambulation and to avoid placing weight on his left leg. (Id.). A physical therapist taught the plaintiff how to use the crutches in order to keep his weight off his left leg and move about safely in a prison setting. (Id. ¶ 17).

After returning to MCI-Cedar Junction, the plaintiff relied on his crutches to move around. (Id. ¶ 18). In particular, according to Jaundoo, he used his crutches to gain access to the shower area. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19). Jaundoo claims that due to the design of the shower room, he had to maneuver over a ledge with the aid of his crutches and then had to move to the far side of the shower area with the use of one crutch in order to reach a working shower nozzle. (Id. ¶ 19).

In September 2007, medical personnel at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital examined Jaundoo's knee and informed him that he could begin "weightbear as tolerated ambulation." (Id. ¶ 21). They also recommended that the plaintiff begin rehabilitation physical therapy designed to strengthen his leg. (See id. ¶¶ 21-22). Although Jaundoo performed the exercises he learned in physical therapy, he continued to use crutches to move around. (Id. ¶ 22).

Jaundoo returned to Lemuel Shattuck Hospital for an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Sepulveda v. UMass Corr. Health
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 5, 2016
    ...suggesting that his allegedly inadequate medical care was caused by anyone's failure to train or supervise. See Jaundoo v. Clarke , 690 F.Supp.2d 20, 32 (D.Mass.2010). Instead, he simply alleges that various providers at MCI Norfolk failed provide him with adequate treatment for his neck pa......
  • Wilmot v. Tracey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • March 28, 2013
    ...F.Supp.2d 42, 51 (D.Mass.2011) (quoting Hegarty v. Somerset Cnty., 53 F.3d 1367, 1379–80 (1st Cir.1995)). See also Jaundoo v. Clarke, 690 F.Supp.2d 20, 31 (D.Mass.2010). Applying these principles to the instant case compels the conclusion that this Count must be dismissed.Connelly and McCla......
  • Lopes v. Riendeau
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • March 30, 2016
    ...plaintiff to wait in the medication line and in rejecting his request for alternative hepatitis C treatment. Cf.Jaundoo v. Clarke, 690 F.Supp.2d 20, 29 (D.Mass.2010) (statement in complaint "that at all relevant times, Berry 'was acting within the scope of her employment as an employee of [......
  • U.S. v. Univ. of Mass.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • January 27, 2016
    ...state.See, e.g., McGee v. UMass Correctional Health, No. 09–40120, 2010 WL 3464282, at *2–4 (D.Mass. Sept. 1, 2010) ; Jaundoo v. Clarke, 690 F.Supp.2d 20, 29 (D.Mass.2010) ; Ali v. Univ. of Mass. Med. Ctr., 140 F.Supp.2d 107, 110 (D.Mass.2001) ; Neo Gen Screening, Inc. v. New Engl. Newborn ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT