Stile v. Cumberland Cnty. Sheriff, 2:14-cv-00406-JAW

• Decision Date: 28 September 2018
• Docket Number: 2:14-cv-00406-JAW
• Parties: JAMES STILE, Plaintiff, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

JAMES STILE, Plaintiff,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.

2:14-cv-00406-JAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

September 28, 2018

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

James Stile has asserted various constitutional violations and state tort claims against the Defendants. Except for one claim against three individual Defendants, Mr. Stile failed to create a genuine issue of material fact and therefore the Court denies in part and grants in part Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 14, 2014, Mr. Stile filed a civil complaint against Cumberland County, the Cumberland County Sheriff, and twenty Cumberland County corrections officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee. Compl. (ECF No. 1). Since then, Mr. Stile filed a number of unorthodox filings, which has complicated this case.¹

Page 2

On September 28, 2017, Mr. Stile filed a motion to stay of proceedings as concerns motions for summary judgment in both this case and another case before this Court, 1-13-cv-00248-JAW. Mot. to Stay Proceedings as Concerns Mots. for Summ. J. at 1 (ECF No. 201 - 2:14-cv-00406-JAW); (ECF No. 450 - 1-13-cv-00248-JAW) (Mot. to Stay). On October 17, 2017, Defendants filed a response in opposition to his motion to stay. Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Stay Proceedings as Concerns Mots. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 207) (Opp'n to Mot. to Stay). On November 11, 2017, the Court denied Mr. Stile's motion to stay. Order (ECF No. 211).

On October 3, 2017, Defendants requested leave to file a memorandum of law in excess of page limit set forth in Local Rule 7(e). Defs.' Mot. for Leave to File Mem. of Law in Excess of Page Limits (ECF No. 202) (Mot. for Leave.) The Court granted Defendants' motion the same day. Order (ECF No. 203). On October 6, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment together with a statement of material facts. Mot. for J. on Pleadings and Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 204) (Defs.' Mots.); Defs.' Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 205) (DSMF).

Mr. Stile's responses were initially due by October 27, 2017; however, on February 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge allowed an extension until March 23, 2018, for Mr. Stile's to file his response to Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment. Procedural Order at 1 (ECF No. 221). On March 5, 2018, Mr. Stile moved to extend time to respond to Defendants' motions alongside

Page 3

various other motions. Mot. for Extension of Time to Resp. to Summ. J. Mot. and for Court to Issue Writ to the United States Marshals Serv./U.S. Att'y General for Transfer of Pl. to Danbury Conn. F.C.I. (ECF No. 223). On May 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge extended Mr. Stile's response deadline to June 15, 2018 but denied his motion in all other respects. Order Granting Pl.'s Mots. for Order Regarding Disc., to Extend Time to File Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., and for Transfer (ECF No. 231).

Mr. Stile objected to the Magistrate Judge's Order on June 11, 2018, and the Defendants responded on June 22, 2018. Pl.'s Obj. to Magistrate's Order as Concerns Pl.'s Mots. for Order Regarding Disc., to Extend Time to File Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., and for Transfer (ECF No. 235); Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Obj. to Magistrate's Decision (ECF No. 237). The Court overruled Mr. Stile's objection on July 13, 2018. Order on Objection to Order on Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 241). In doing so, the Court stated, "that it will immediately begin . . . reviewing the Defendants' dispositive motions . . . . If Mr. Stile is able to file a response to those motions before the Court issues the order, the Court will consider his responses and will allow the Defendants fourteen days to reply . . . ." Id. at 6-7.²

Page 4

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment³

A court may grant summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 if the record demonstrates that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "A fact is material when it has potential of changing a case's outcome." Doe v. Trustees of Boston Coll., 892 F.3d 67, 79 (1st Cir. 2018). There is a genuine dispute "when the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea, 959 F.2d 349, 352 (1st Cir. 1992)). If the Court finds that "there is a genuine dispute of a material fact, that dispute would need to be resolved by a trier of fact." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002)).

The Court must examine the record evidence "in the light most favorable to [the nonmovant], and [must draw] all reasonable inferences in . . . favor [of the

Page 5

nonmoving party]." Foley v. Town of Randolf, 598 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010). But a movant may "demonstrate[] an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Murray v. Warren Pumps, LLC, 821 F.3d 77, 83 (1st Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). The nonmovant, in turn, "must adduce specific facts showing that a trier of fact reasonably could find in his favor." Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)).

B. Local Rule 56 of the District of Maine

A pro se litigant is not "absolved from compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." F.D.I.C. v. Anchor Props., 13 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Heller, 957 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir. 1992)). A pro se litigant must also comply with a district court's procedural rules." See Ruiz Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 27 -28 & n.2 (1st Cir. 2000). District of Maine Local Rule 56(c) provides, in relevant part, that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall submit its own statement of material facts in which it admits, denies, or qualifies the movant's statement of material facts, and section (f) states that facts shall be deemed admitted if not properly controverted. A non-movant's failure to properly respond with his or her own opposing statement of material facts deems movant's statement of material facts, if properly supported by references to the summary judgment record, as admitted. See Lawson v. Campbell, No. CIV. 09-226-P-H, 2010 WL 2803372, at *1 (D. Me. July 15, 2010) (citing Cosme-Rosado v. Serrano-Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2004)). However, a non-movant's failure "to respond does not automatically

Page 6

entitle the movant to summary judgment." Jackson v. Town of Waldoboro, 751 F. Supp. 2d 263, 265 (D. Me. 2010) (citing Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2003)). The movant must show that it has "met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law." Cordero-Soto v. Island Fin., Inc., 418 F.3d 114, 118 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Lopez v. Corporación Azucarera de P.R., 938 F.2d 1510, 1516 (1st Cir. 1991)).

At the summary judgment stage, a verified complaint is treated as an affidavit equivalent. Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d 1259, 1262 (1st Cir. 1991); Demmons v. Tritch, 484 F. Supp. 2d 177, 182 (D. Me. 2007). This District has generally considered prisoner affidavits even if they are noncompliant with Local Rule 56. See e.g., Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D. Me. 2007). Mr. Stile's Complaint in this case is notarized and contains only the words "sworn to before me" above the notary's stamp. The Court considers this sufficient under the standard of a verified complaint and thus, treats it as an affidavit equivalent. Nevertheless, the Court will consider only specific facts outlined in Mr. Stile's Complaint, not conclusory allegations that do not make a factual showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Sheinkopf, 927 F.2d at 1262; Sullivan v. City of Springfield, 561 F.3d 7, 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (Courts will "ignore conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation"); Perry v. Ryan, No. 90-1826, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7098, at *7 (1st Cir. Apr. 3, 1991) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS⁴

Page 7

A. The Parties

On October 30, 2015, Mr. Stile pleaded guilty to a robbery charge and was sentenced on May 29, 2015. DSMF ¶ 4.⁵ Before pleading guilty, Mr. Stile was a pretrial inmate incarcerated at the Cumberland County Jail beginning February 1, 2012. Id. ¶ 1; Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 3.⁶ Mr. Stile remained at the Cumberland County Jail, with the exception of a few days when he was transported to Penobscot County and Somerset County, until January 15, 2013. DSMF ¶¶ 2, 3; Compl. ¶ 3. The individual Defendants are all employed by Cumberland County Jail.⁷ Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 8; Answer ¶¶ 4, 8. Defendant Joyce has the overall responsibility for the running of Cumberland County Jail and its corrections officers. Compl. ¶ 8; DMSF Att. 24, Aff. of Kevin Joyce ¶ 2.

B. Disciplinary Hearings at Cumberland County Jail

On November 21, 2012, Corrections Officers Bryan Leblanc, Christopher

Page 8

Bisson and Lieutenant George Panenka⁸ were part of a disciplinary board that conducted five disciplinary hearings concerning Mr. Stile. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14; DSMF ¶ 5.⁹ Even though he demonstrated a desire to attend the hearing, Mr. Stile was denied the right to attend.¹⁰ Compl. ¶ 14.

1. Cumberland County Jail's Policies for Disciplinary Hearings

The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office Corrections Division Policy and Procedure Manual contains the official policies and procedures of the Cumberland County Jail. DSMF ¶ 105. Staff is required to review and to be knowledgeable and conversant with the policies in the manual. Id. Cumberland County Jail Policies and Procedures D-101...