Jefferson v. Raimondo
| Decision Date | 15 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 17-439 WES |
| Parties | LEONARD C. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. GINA RAIMONDO, Governor of the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations; ASHBEL T. WALL, Director of Rhode Island Department of Corrections [RIDOC]; BARRY WEINER, Assistant Director of Rehabilitative Services at RIDOC; MATTHEW KETTLE, Associate Director at RIDOC; DEPUTY WARDEN ACETO, of the Maximum Security Unit [Max] of RIDOC; CAPTAIN DUFFY, LIEUTENANTS AMARAL and BURT, Superior Officers at Max; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS PAOLELLO and CROWLEY; JENNIFER CLARKE, Medical Program Director at RIDOC; and SIMON MELNICK, Treating Physician at RIDOC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion1 to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) Plaintiff Leonard C. Jefferson's Complaint (ECF No. 1).Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 20), recommending that the Motion be granted as to all Counts, but Count V. Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommends, however, that Count V be dismissed only as to the individual claims against Defendants Wall and Kettle, and "all claims against Defendants Raimondo, Duffy, Burt and Paolello should be dismissed." (R. & R. 34.) Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the R&R ("Objection") (ECF No. 22).
Additionally, after the R&R was filed, Defendants Dr. Jennifer Clarke and Dr. Simon Melnick ("Medical Defendants") separately moved to dismiss (ECF No. 23). After careful review, the Court accepts the R&R. The Court therefore grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court also grants Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
At the outset, Plaintiff does not object to the recommendation that Counts VI-IX be dismissed. (See Obj. 1.) As to Counts I-V, however, Plaintiff raises twenty-one objections. (See generally id.) Objections must "specify the findings and/or recommendationsto which objection is made and the basis for the objection." DRI LR Cv 72 (d)(2). The Court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
However, "this Court need not 'consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections.'" Seymour v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., No. 09-526-ML, 2010 WL 3894023, at *1 (D.R.I. Oct. 4, 2010) (quoting Espada-Santiago v. Hosp. Episcopal San Lucas, No. 07-2221(ADC), 2009 WL 702350, at *1 (D.P.R. Mar. 11, 2009)); see also Sackall v. Heckler, 104 F.R.D. 401, 403 (D.R.I. 1984) ().
Here, Plaintiff places the R&R under a microscope, complaining line-by-line about Magistrate Judge Sullivan's analysis. (See generally Obj.) For example, Plaintiff begins with the statement that Defendants are in "sham-compliance" with his prior case's settlement agreement in Jefferson v. Piccirillo, No. 14-475-M-LDA, 2015 WL 3700796 (D.R.I. June 12, 2015). (Id. at 1; see also R. & R. 3.) Further, although Plaintiff complains about res judicata barring his claims, he concedes in an earlier objection that, "the claims set forth in Counts I thru IV of the Raimondo Complaint may be similar in kind to those resolved by the Piccirillo settlement." (Obj. at 5.) Later, Plaintiff objects tothe word "extensive" describing the "inspection of Max [that] occurred on April 24, 2017." (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff's scattershot attacks on the R&R lack merit. And to the extent that Plaintiff has raised objections not specifically addressed below, the Court has reviewed all arguments and "has determined that they are without merit." See Seymour, 2010 WL 3894023, at *4. This Court's de novo review leads it to the same conclusion as Magistrate Judge Sullivan, and for the reasons she articulated, Defendants' Motion must be granted.
Plaintiff attacks the R&R's finding that "the complaint does not allege that the occasional chilly temperatures . . . amount to a 'dangerously cold' condition." (Obj. 5-6 (quoting R. & R. 11).) Citing Sampson v. Berks County Prison, 171 F. App'x 382 (3d Cir. 2006), Plaintiff argues that low cell temperatures in combination with other factors, such as length of confinement, create a deprivation of human needs sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. (See id. at 6.) Magistrate Judge Sullivan's analysis, however, which highlights the Court's prior decision in Jefferson v. Pepin, C.A. No. 16-016S, 2017 WL 5197880 (D.R.I. Jan. 26, 2017), is correct. (See R. & R. 15-16.) In Pepin, the same Plaintiff alleged an Eighth Amendment violation as to cold temperatures resulting from proximity to the HVAC system, which the Court rejected, stating that he had not plead that his cellwas "dangerously cold." (Id. at 15); see also Pepin, 2017 WL 5197880, at *4-5. As Magistrate Judge Sullivan explained, in this case Plaintiff once again did not plead that his cell was "dangerously cold," and his similar allegations are inadequate to "permit[] the inference that the cold . . . deprived him of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." (R. & R. 16 (quoting Restucci v. Clarke, 669 F. Supp. 2d 150, 155-56 (D. Mass. 2009)).
Similarly, Plaintiff objects to the finding that "the mere presence of mold or occasional temperatures below 65° are insufficient to indicate an objectively serious deprivation of life's necessities." (Obj. 12 (quoting R. & R. 14).) Additionally, Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for lack of an allegation or evidence supporting "deliberate indifference." (Id. at 17-18.)
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, "a plaintiff must satisfy both a subjective and objective inquiry." Leavitt v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 497 (1st Cir. 2011). As to Plaintiff's arguments about mold, "[e]ven if the Court were satisfied with the adequacy of Plaintiff's pleading of conditions causing objectively serious harm, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims are nevertheless subject to dismissal because the Complaint fails to plead deliberate indifference." (R. & R. 17.)Plaintiff's Complaint shows the opposite, citing the multiple times he has been able to see doctors "who examined, tested and treated him for the allergies and illnesses he claims were caused by these conditions." (Id.) "[P]laintiff[] disagree[s] with the Magistrate's factual findings but offer[s] nothing to bolster [his] objections except [his] own interpretation of the evidence." Monfort-Rodriguez v. Hernandez, 286 F. Supp. 2d 119, 121 (D.P.R. 2003). Therefore, Plaintiff's Objections are denied.3
Medical Defendants allege that Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because it is barred by res judicata.(See Mem. in Supp. Defs. Melnick & Clarke's Mot. to Dismiss ( ) Further, as Magistrate Judge Sullivan articulated, "the claim preclusion doctrine of res judicata, coupled with the effect of the release arising from the Piccirillo settlement agreement, together require that Counts I-IV should be dismissed in their entirety." (R. & R. 23-24; see also Med. Defs.' Mem. 3-4 ().)
Although the R&R does not encompass Medical Defendants, its reasoning applies to their Motion with equal force, and the claims against these defendants will be dismissed for the same reasons. (See generally R. & R.) Therefore, the Court grants Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
For the above reasons, this Court ACCEPTS the R&R (ECF No. 20) and adopts its reasoning and recommendations. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Additionally, Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. To avoid complete dismissal of his case, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that remediesthe deficiencies outlined herein and in the R&R within thirty days of this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
v.
GINA RAIMONDO, Governor of the State of Rhode Island; ASHBEL T. WALL, Director of Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC); BARRY WEINER, Assistant Director of Rehabilitative Services at RIDOC; MATTHEW KETTLE, Associate Director at RIDOC; DEPUTY WARDEN ACETO, of the Maximum Security Unit (Max) of RIDOC; CAPTAIN DUFFY; LIEUTENANTS AMARAL and BURT, Superior Officers at Max; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS PAOLELLO and CROWLEY; JENNIFER CLARK, Medical Program Director at RIDOC; and SIMON MELNICK, Treating Physician at RIDOC; Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) brought by some but not all of the defendants5 named in this sixty-five-page, 452-paragraph, nine-Count "Verified Complaint with Jury Demand." ECF No. 1 ("Complaint"). Plaintiff Leonard C. Jefferson is aninmate at the Adult Correctional Institutions ("ACI"). He is serving a life sentence without parole in the Maximum Security Unit ("Max"). In his pro se Complaint, he has joined together the following three unrelated claims:6
To continue reading
Request your trial