Thomas v. Barnstable Cnty. Corr. Facility
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-cv-10398-ADB |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | TERRENCE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Pro se Plaintiff Terrence Thomas (“Thomas” or “Plaintiff”), who is detained at Barnstable County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”), brings this action against prison officials, Steve Montaldo, Officer Conley, and Major Montero,[1] (collectively, “BCCF Defendants”), and Kerry Jarvis[2] (collectively “Defendants”). [ECF No. 22]. He makes constitutional claims against the BCCF Defendants related to interference with his mail, the recording of a meeting with his attorney, and verbal harassment and racial discrimination, and against Defendant Jarvis, a licensed mental health counselor, for inadequate medical care. [Id.]. Currently before the Court are Defendants' motions for summary judgment, [ECF Nos. 91, 95], which, for the reasons set forth below, are GRANTED.
Local Rule 56.1 provides that “[a] party opposing [a] motion [for summary judgment] shall include a concise statement of the material facts of record as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried, with page references to affidavits, depositions and other documents.” L.R. 56.1. Thomas did not file a statement that complies with this requirement; instead, in his oppositions to Defendants' motions, he contested specific facts asserted by Defendants. See [ECF Nos. 99, 100]. Local Rule 56.1 also states that “[m]aterial facts of record set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed for purposes of the motion to be admitted by opposing parties unless controverted by the statement required to be served by opposing parties.” L.R. 56.1.
Nevertheless, “‘[d]istrict courts enjoy broad latitude' in adopting and administering such local rules.” NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 1994); see also Ramsdell v. Bowles, 64 F.3d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1995) (). As such, “[w]here a party opposing a motion for summary judgment fails to comply with Local Rule 56.1, the court has the discretion to decide whether to impose the sanction of deeming the moving party's factual assertions to be admitted.” Butters v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 10-cv-10072, 2012 WL 5959986, at *2 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2012) (citing Swallow v. Fetzer Vineyards, 46 Fed.Appx. 636, 638-39 (1st Cir. 2002)) (further citation omitted); Plourde v. Sorin Grp. USA, Inc., 517 F.Supp.3d 76, 81 (D. Mass. 2021) (quoting Butters, 2012 WL 5959986, at *2) (same).
Additionally, courts “are solicitous of the obstacles that pro se litigants face, and while such litigants are not exempt from procedural rules, we hold pro se pleadings to less demanding standards than those drafted by lawyers and endeavor, within reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims due to technical defects.” Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, “self-representation is not ‘a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.'” Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 140 (1st Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). “Thus, the Court will consider a pro se movant's circumstances when reviewing his motion for summary judgment but will not provide ‘extra procedural swaddling.'” Grossman v. Martin, 566 F.Supp.3d 136, 143 (D.R.I. 2021) (quoting Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Com., 20 F.3d 503, 506 (1st Cir. 1994)).
Pursuant to the Court's discretion and in light of Thomas's Pro se status, the Court will consider any factual disputes specifically raised by Thomas and/or the summary judgment record. If undisputed, the facts stated in Defendants' statements of material facts are deemed admitted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1.
BCCF maintains a detailed grievance policy (“Grievance Policy”), a version of which was in effect during the period at issue. [ECF No. 97 ¶ 6]; see also [ECF Nos. 93-7, 97-5]. The Grievance Policy is explained in the Inmate Handbook, which Thomas received on June 23, 2019, and which notifies individuals incarcerated at BCCF of their right to file grievances concerning the conditions of their incarceration and the decisions of BCCF staff. [ECF No. 97 ¶¶ 7-8]; see also [ECF No. 97-6 at 17-18].
The steps in Grievance Policy are as follows:
Thomas alleges three incidents of BCCF staff interfering with his mail:
a. July 2020 Incident
On July 29, 2020, Thomas alleges that Defendant Montaldo attempted to force him to accept mail from his counsel in an ongoing litigation (unrelated to this action), which had been opened and held by BCCF staff from July 22, 2020 to July 29, 2020. [ECF No. 97 ¶ 20]. Thomas had previously reviewed the contents of the letter with his attorney, and claims that when he received the letter, several pages were missing. [Id. ¶¶ 21-23]. He did not see who had opened the mail. [Id. ¶ 24]. Thomas initially refused to accept the mail and that day requested a grievance form from Defendant Montaldo, completed it, and submitted it by placing it in the grievance box (Grievance Form #18-000-0488). [Id. ¶¶ 25-26]; see also [ECF No. 97-8]. The form was signed by Thomas's Unit Manager, who indicated that the matter was not resolved. [Id.].
Defendant Montero, the Assistant Deputy Secretary, reviewed the form and reached a decision on July 30, 2020. [ECF No. 97-8]. In the “Decision” field of the grievance form, rather than selecting “Approve” or “Disapprove,” Defendant Montero handwrote the word “modified,” and included a comment indicating that Thomas should see another page of the form for an explanation of his response. [Id. at 3]. That page, however, does not appear to have been filed by either side. [Id.]. Although the BCCF Defendants attached a page to this grievance, it seems to apply to a different grievance, related to a later October 2020 alleged incident of mail interference. [Id. at 4]. Before Thomas received the grievance form back, he accepted the legal mail. [ECF No. 97 at ¶ 27].
The parties dispute what followed. The BCCF Defendants aver that on August 4, 2020, Thomas received the grievance form back reviewed it, checked off that he did not intend to appeal its denial, and signed and dated the form. [ECF No. 97 at ¶ 28]. Thomas disputes this, saying that he “checked the box for an appeal” but “no appeal was given to [him] by [BCCF],” though he does not indicate how he was deprived of the appeal process. [ECF No. 100 at 1]. On the copy of the grievance form filed by the BCCF Defendants, Thomas checked the box indicating that he did not intend to appeal the decision, [ECF No. 97-8 at 3]; however, on the copy of the form filed by Thomas, that checkbox is crossed out and he instead checked the box indicating that he did intend to appeal the decision, [ECF No. 100-1 at 1]. Neither party has provided an explanation for these two conflicting versions of the same document, but in his deposition, Thomas stated that he indicated on the form that he would not appeal because “[Montero] told [Thomas] it wasn't going to happen again” and that the opening of his mail “was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial