BEAN v. BARNHART et al

Filing 36

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 33 Report and Recommendations. for 18 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PATRICIA BARNHART, JOSEPH PONTE, By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BENJAMIN BEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA BARNART, in her
individual capacity as former Warden
for the Maine Department
of Corrections
and
JOSEPH PONTE, in his individual
capacity as Commissioner for the
Maine Department of Corrections,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil No. 1:13-cv-00196-NT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff, Benjamin Bean, filed suit against the Defendants, former Maine
Department Corrections Warden Patricia Barnhart and Maine Department of
Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte, on May 30, 2013. The Plaintiff’s complaint
(ECF No. 1) asserts that the Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing
to protect him from an attack by another prisoner. The Defendants moved for
summary judgment (ECF No. 18) on November 7, 2013 based on their affirmative
defense that Bean failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed a Recommended Decision (ECF No.
33) with the Court on March 12, 2014, denying the motion. The Defendants filed an
objection March 25, 2014 (ECF No. 34) and the Plaintiff filed a response on April 5,
2014 (ECF No. 35).
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record, and made a de novo determination of all
matters adjudicated by it. I concur with the recommendations of the United States
Magistrate Judge.
As Footnote 6 of the Recommended Decision envisions, a pretrial conference is
warranted to discuss and schedule further proceedings regarding the Defendants’
affirmative defense that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies. Several issues related to this defense remain unresolved, such as precisely
what legal inquiry applies where a plaintiff argues that a failure to follow prison
procedures should be excused, who bears the burden on any part of that inquiry,
whether the Court may resolve the issue of exhaustion before trial, and what sort of
proceedings would allow the Court to do so fairly and expeditiously.
The Court therefore AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision and directs the Clerk of Court to contact the parties and schedule a pretrial
conference regarding the issues discussed above.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States District Judge
Dated this 13th day of May, 2014
2