Niemic v. Maloney
| Decision Date | 11 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 04-11482-NMG. |
| Citation | 448 F.Supp.2d 270 |
| Parties | Keith NIEMIC, Plaintiff, v. Michael MALONEY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Keith Niemic, South Walpole, MA, pro se.
Stephen G. Dietrick, MA Department of Correction, James A. Bello Morrison, Lisa R. Wichter, Mahoney LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
The plaintiff, Keith Niemic ("Niemic"), who represents himself, alleges that defendants Michael Maloney, Peter Allen, David Nolan, Pat Mulvey, David Brian, Paul Murphy, Gary Hebda, Ann Marie Aucoin, Dick Solom, Beverly Veglas, Susan Martin, Kristie LaDouceur, Stan Galas, Arthur Brewer, June Binney, Jeff Shorey, Kara Erdody, Donna Fitzgerald, Donald Kern and Gurvinder Jaiswal violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and are liable to him under several common law tort theories. Several motions have been filed in this Court, including motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction. Having considered the memoranda in support of and in opposition to the multiple pending motions, the Court rules as follows.
Niemic is currently incarcerated at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center ("SBCC") in Shirley, Massachusetts, although most of the events described in his complaint took place while he was incarcerated at the MCI-Cedar Junction state correctional facility in Walpole, Massachusetts ("the Walpole facility").
For several years, Niemic has suffered from a liver ailment, chronic migraines and other physical and mental conditions. He alleges that he began requesting treatment for his liver problem in 1997 but that he did not begin a program of Interferon to treat Hepatitis C until December 31, 2001. The treatment was discontinued in June, 2002, apparently because Niemic told his doctors that the side-effects were too painful.
In July, 2003, Niemic requested that his Hepatitis C treatment be resumed but was told that a six-month waiting list existed for the treatment. Niemic alleges that in September, 2003, he was forcibly and coercively 1) subjected to a medical examination, 2) required to provide a urine sample and 3) given medical treatment against his will. After that episode, Niemic again requested treatment for his liver condition but was told that treatment could not begin because he had submitted a "dirty" urine sample and needed to be drug-free for 12 months before commencement of the program.
With respect to his migraines, Niemic contends that although several doctors prescribed various medications for him in November 2001, May, 2002, and April, 2003, he was either denied those prescriptions or given inadequate substitutes. The medical records show that he consistently refused Tylenol and Motrin and wanted only more potent narcotics to treat his pain. Moreover, he contends that he was subjected to an extended delay before being allowed to see a neurologist.
According to the plaintiff, the ineffective treatment, willful indifference and various denials of his complaints and requests for relief from physical pain caused him serious injury and emotional distress.
In September, 2003, the plaintiff was transferred to the Departmental Disciplinary Unit ("DDU") at the Walpole facility to serve a one-year term for reasons that Niemic maintains are unjustified, i.e., for making complaints about being placed illegally in a segregated block. He contends that after he was removed to the DDU he was deprived of various legal materials and personal records for a significant length of time in contravention of the policy set forth in the DDU manual.
Niemic further contends that his complaints and requests relating to his physical ailments went unaddressed while he was in the DDU. In October, 2003, for instance, he made numerous complaints about physical pain and a rapid 20-pound weight loss without receiving an adequate response. He alleges that he continued to suffer pain about which he complained for the following eight months but that his requests for evaluations and treatment were denied.
In October, 2003, Niemic attended a disciplinary hearing with respect to the alleged "dirty" urine incident but was allegedly denied adequate access to legal materials in advance of that hearing and of a tape recording of the proceedings afterward. The results of the drug test were affirmed at the hearing and Niemic was assessed a fine and a penalty depriving him of various privileges, including visits, telephone, television, radio and commissary, for six months. He submits that he was, furthermore, deprived of adequate legal materials to appeal that decision.
In addition to the foregoing allegations, Niemic alleges that 1) he has been deprived of timely access to incoming and outgoing mail for several years, 2) he has been deliberately deprived of access to legal materials on multiple occasions, which has specifically deprived him of meaningful participation in legal proceedings brought by or against him, 3) deliberately false reports have been made about him, 4) a freeze was put on his personal financial account in order to prevent him from filing legal papers and 5) various grievances and requests were treated with deliberate indifference and callousness.
On June 29, 2004, Niemic filed a handwritten, 68-page complaint against the named defendants in their individual and official capacities alleging numerous violations of federal and state law. The defendants fall generally into two categories: a) 12 employees of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections ("the Corrections defendants") and b) eight employees of the University of Massachusetts Correctional Health ("UMCH") ("the medical defendants"), which provides medical services to the Walpole facility (among other correctional institutions). The complaint states claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the FOIA and for common law tort violations.
Niemic has requested relief in the form of 1) 29 declaratory judgments, 2) injunctive relief addressing plaintiffs medical treatment and the disciplinary action taken in response to the "dirty urine" hearing, 3) compensatory damages totaling 8455,000 and 4) punitive damages in the amount of $300,000. He has requested a jury trial.
On December 21, 2005, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order which disposed of multiple pending motions of the plaintiff and ordered the Corrections defendants to respond to the plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on or before January 13, 2006. That response was filed on January 12, 2006.
At present, there are seven motions, pending before this Court:
1) plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against the. Corrections defendants (Docket No. 67);
2) medical defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 81);
3) plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Appointment of Law Student to represent him (Docket No. 87);
4) plaintiffs "Motion to Deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay Such Motion" (Docket No. 88);
5) plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Respond/Move to Strike Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 89); and
6) plaintiffs Motions for Relief From Judgment or Order (Docket Nos. 90, 91).
The plaintiff filed a motion with respect to all defendants on August 11, 2005 (Docket No. 67), seeking to require them 1) to provide him with an evaluation by a neurologist, 2) to provide medically appropriate treatment for his pain and disability, 3) to remove him to a medical facility for proper treatment, 4) to return to him various personal items including law books and radios, 5) to allow him visitation and communication privileges and 6) to give him unrestricted access to legal materials, supplies, photocopies and mail in order to allow him access to the courts. In support of his motion Niemic argues that a) his medical needs are going unmet, b) he was improperly transferred from the Walpole facility to SBCC (both level six facilities) in retaliation for his ongoing legal claims and c) he has suffered irreparable harm from being denied access to his legal materials.
As the Court reasoned in its Memorandum and Order of December 21, 2005, the motion will be treated as one for a preliminary injunction only, because it was served directly on the parties to whom it is addressed. In evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction, a court must consider 1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, 3) the balance of relative harms and 4) the effect of the ruling on the public interest. See Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1996).
Niemic has not established that he would likely prevail on the merits against the Corrections defendants. Numerous documented responses to sick calls, medical prescriptions and reports of evaluations and treatment by specialists all suggest that Niemic has received adequate medical care. Indeed, it was this evidence that prompted the Court previously to deny a similar motion against the medical defendants. Furthermore, neither the plaintiff's own affidavit nor that of fellow-inmate Daniel Mason ("Mason") asserts facts suggesting that the Corrections defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff s medical needs.
Niemic's remaining two arguments in favor of a preliminary injunction are equally unpersuasive. The documentation suggests that the decision to transfer Niemic was based on, among other things, ongoing disciplinary problems, "present segregation status" and departmental housing needs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Persson v. Bos. Univ.
...197-98 (D. Mass. 1991)). "These standards for summary judgment apply even where the plaintiff proceeds pro se." Niemic v. Maloney, 448 F. Supp. 2d 270, 277 (D. Mass. 2006). B. Discrimination Claim Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an emp......
-
Hinckley v. Washington
... ... ‘neither related to freedom of restraint nor an ... ‘atypical and significant hardship.'” ... Niemic v. Maloney , 448 F.Supp.2d 270, 280 (D. Mass ... 2006) (quoting Sandin , 515 U.S. at 484) ... Moreover, ... ...
-
Niemic v. Umass Corr. Health
...atypical and significant hardship’ on an inmate as compared to the ‘ordinary incidents of prison life.’ ” Niemic v. Maloney, 448 F.Supp.2d 270, 280 (D.Mass.2006) (Gorton, J.) (alteration in original) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293 ). Failure to receive one's preferred pain......
-
Velasquez v. Martin
... ... and has submitted cogent and well-researched filings in ... this litigation. See Niemic v. Maloney , 448 ... F.Supp.2d 270, 281 (D. Mass. 2006) (denying motion to appoint ... counsel where plaintiff “seem[ed] fully capable ... ...