STILE v. SOMERSET COUNTY et al

Filing 176

ORDER adopting 127 Report and Recommended Decision for 105 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by DAVID ALLEN; granting in part, dismissing in part and denying in part 105 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by DAVID ALLEN. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES STILE,
Plaintiff
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY, et al.
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00248-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In performing a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s recommended
decision in this case, the Court clarifies that documents outside a complaint generally
may not be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss, that the parties must give the
Magistrate Judge all relevant information before the recommended decision is issued,
and that Local Rule 72.1 disallows reply memoranda without prior permission of the
Court. Turning to the merits, assuming the truth of the allegations in the amended
complaint and drawing reasonable inferences from those allegations, the Court
overrules the Jail Administrator’s objections and affirms the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommended Decision to deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the supervisory
liability claim in the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Final.
I.

BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2013, James Stile, acting pro se, filed suit against Somerset County,

Maine, David Allen, the Somerset County Jail Administrator, and a host of Somerset

County Corrections Officers. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On August 14, 2014, Mr. Stile filed
what he called an Amended Complaint Final. Am Compl. Final (ECF No. 92). In
that Amended Complaint Final, Mr. Stile pursued his lawsuit against Mr. Allen
under two theories: (1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he claimed that the Defendants
violated a number of his constitutional rights; and (2) pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), he claimed that the Defendants discriminated against him
due to his disability. Id. at 24-25.
On September 22, 2014, Defendant David Allen moved to dismiss Mr. Stile’s
Amended Complaint Final.1 Def. David Allen’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 105). Mr.
Stile responded on October 10, 2014. Pl.’s Resp. to Def. David Allen’s Mot. to Dismiss
(ECF No. 117). Mr. Allen replied on October 24, 2014. Def. David Allen’s Reply Mem.
of Law in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 119). On December 30, 2014, the
Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that Mr.
Allen’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Recommended
Decision on Mot. to Dismiss at 6-7 (ECF No. 127). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Mr. Allen’s motion to dismiss the supervisory liability count under
18 U.S.C. § 1983 be denied and that his motion to dismiss the ADA claim be granted.
Id.
On January 16, 2015, Mr. Allen objected to the portion of the recommended
decision in which the Court recommended that the § 1983 claim not be dismissed.

In Mr. Stile’s original Complaint, he listed Mr. Allen with other Defendants in a Maine Tort
Claims Act claim. Compl. at 21. His Amended Complaint Final, however, does not name Mr. Allen as
a Defendant for that claim. Am. Compl. Final at 24-25.
1

2

Def. David Allen’s Partial Objection to Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss
(ECF No. 149) (Allen Objection). Mr. Stile responded to Mr. Allen’s objection on
January 29, 2015, urging the Court to affirm the recommended decision. Objection
to Def.[’]s Objection to Magistrate[’]s Recommended Decision to Def. David Allen’s Mot.
for Dismissal (ECF No. 153) (Stile Resp.). On February 2, 2015, Mr. Allen replied to
Mr. Stile’s response to his objection to the recommended decision. Def. David Allen’s
Resp. to Pl.’s Objection to Recommended Decision on Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No.
158) (Allen Reply).
II.

JAMES STILE’S OBJECTION
When Mr. Stile filed his response to Mr. Allen’s objection, he requested that

the Court “allow for the Plaintiff to enter into evidence, video documentation and
documentary paper evidence that supports the Plaintiff’s position that Defendant
Allen had more than a casual relation to the assaults upon the Plaintiff and that
there was much more than, ‘conduct that amounted to condonation or tacit
authorization,’ of which was a minimum requisite.” Stile Resp. at 2 (emphasis in
original).

Mr. Stile attached to his response three exhibits: (1) Answers to

Interrogatories, (2) a document dated January 14th, 2012 and Bate-stamped 1064,
and (3) a portion of a document titled, “Somerset County Jail Policy and Procedure
8.7. Use of Force” and Bate-stamped 687-88. Id. Attachs. A-C. He claims the right
to present these additional documents to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Id. at 1. He is wrong.

3

The Court may not consider these documents. See Recommended Decision at
4 n.2. The motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a
complaint and a court must determine “whether, construing the well-pleaded facts of
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[], the complaint states a
claim for which relief can be granted.” Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d
1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011). The law allows the Court to consider a limited set of documents
in ruling on a motion to dismiss, including documents attached to the complaint or
any other documents “integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint, even
though not attached to the complaint.” Trans-Spec Trust Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar
Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 321 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Shaw v. Digital Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d
1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996)). It is questionable whether the documents Mr. Stile
attached to his response to Mr. Allen’s objection fit within this narrow exception. See
Recommended Decision at 4 n.2.
Even if the Court could consider the Jail’s use of force policy, there is another
reason it may not do so at this stage. Mr. Stile did not attach them to his original
response to the motion to dismiss. See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. David Allen’s Mot. to Dismiss
(ECF No. 117). Accordingly, as Mr. Stile did not present them to the Magistrate
Judge, he did not give the Magistrate Judge an opportunity to consider them. See
Recommended Decision at 4 n.2 (“The location of the policy on the record . . . is not
readily apparent”). Instead, Mr. Stile waited for the Magistrate Judge to issue his
recommended decision and he is now attempting to present to this Court what he did
not present to the Magistrate Judge. This he may not do. “Parties must take before

4

the magistrate, not only their ‘best shot’ but all of their shots.” Borden v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); Flanders v. Mass Resistance, 1:12-cv-00262JAW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71517, at *6 (D. Me. May 21, 2013).
III.

DAVID ALLEN’S REPLY
On February 2, 2015, Mr. Allen filed a reply to Mr. Stile’s response to his

objection to the recommended decision. Allen Reply at 1-4. This Mr. Allen may not
do except by prior order of the court. Objections to recommended decisions are
controlled by Local Rule 72.1. D. ME. LOC. R. 72.1. Local Rule 72.1 allows a party
objecting to a recommended decision to file an objection within 14 days after being
served with a copy of the decision, and it allows the responding party to file a response
within 14 days after being served with an objection. Id. It allows a reply to the
response only by prior order of the court: “Except by prior order of the court, no reply
memorandum shall be filed.” Id. Mr. Allen did not move for an order allowing him
to file a reply and therefore the Court has not considered his reply under Local Rule
71.2.
IV.

THE MERITS
A.

David Allen’s Objections

The sole objection before the Court is to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the Court deny the motion to dismiss as to the supervisory
liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Allen Objection at 1. Mr. Allen objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s use of “contextual judgment”, arguing that the United States

5

Supreme Court decision of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) forbids reliance
on conclusions “not entitled to the assumption of truth” and allows consideration only
of well-pleaded factual allegations. Allen Objection at 4 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679). Mr. Allen recites Iqbal and says that Mr. Stile failed to be any more definite
and less conclusory than the Plaintiff’s allegations in Iqbal. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 680-81).

Mr. Allen concludes that once the conclusory allegations are

disregarded, Mr. Stile “makes one factual allegation about Mr. Allen — that he was
the jail administrator.” Id. at 5. He argues that this fact alone does not support a
claim of supervisory liability. Id. at 5-6. Finally, he criticizes the Magistrate Judge
for considering a fact that Mr. Stile did not plead, namely that the Somerset County
Jail is a “relatively small facility in central Maine.” Id. at 6.
B.

DISCUSSION
1.

The Allegations in the Stile Complaint

Mr. Stile introduces his allegations by describing the following general
violations of his constitutional rights: (1) confinement in segregation, (2) repeated
daily strip searches and visible body cavity searches, (3) daily cell searches, (4) cell
searches anytime he left his cell, (5) the use of four-point restraints every time he was
removed from his cell. Am. Compl. Final at 2-3. Mr. Stile alleges that Mr. Allen was
one of the jail administrators of the Somerset County Jail during his period of
incarceration there. Id. ¶ 5.
In his Amended Complaint Final, Mr. Stile claims that the Corrections Officers
at the Somerset County Jail did the following:

6

(1)

After Mr. Stile was involved in an altercation with an inmate
named Ernest Almeida on December 20, 2011, the Jail placed him in
administrative segregation in a unit called the Special Management
Unit (SMU). Id. ¶ 10. Inmate Almeida had a relative who was a
corrections officer whose last name was also Almeida and who
harassed Mr. Stile by awakening him every fifteen minutes. Id.
Other corrections officers joined in the harassment, including
removing his blanket from his cell, which caused him to experience
cold chills and to be unable to sleep. Id. ¶ 10.

(2)

On December 22, 2011, the corrections officers came to Mr. Stile’s
cell, announced they had a search warrant, failed to produce the
warrant, stripped him naked, and left him in the cell. Id. ¶ 11.

(3)

Daily from September 13, 2011 until January 31, 2012, for six
days in September 2012, for four days in May 2013, and from
September 24, 2013 until September 30, 2013, the corrections officers
subjected Mr. Stile to strip searches and visible body cavity searches.
Id. ¶ 12. They also subjected Mr. Stile to these searches whenever
he was removed from his cell. Id.

(4)

Two corrections officers, Corrections Officers Almeida and
Meunier, spit in Mr. Stile’s food tray before giving him his food. Id.
¶ 13. Corrections Officer Meunier stated that shards of glass would
be placed in Mr. Stile’s food. Id. As a consequence, Mr. Stile stopped

7

eating food for a period of thirty-nine days because he feared his food
would be tainted. Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Stile filed grievances about his
treatment and his grievances went unanswered. Id. His lack of food
led to his experiencing hallucinations and lost consciousness. Id.
(5)

On December 26, 2011, Corrections Officer Meunier told Mr. Stile
that he was removing his blankets and bedding in order to punish
him and, when Mr. Stile refused, he was sprayed with a chemical
agent, shocked with an electrical shield, beaten with fists and booted
feet, and dragged to a suicide watch cell, where he was strip
searched, subjected to a visual body cavity search, and refused clean
clothing free of chemical agents. Id. ¶ 15.

(6)

On the grounds that to use the telephone or receive attorney visits
he had to be able to walk, the corrections officers repeatedly denied
Mr. Stile access to his attorney by refusing to allow him to use the
telephone and by turning his attorney away when the lawyer
attempted to visit him. Id. ¶ 16.

(7)

The corrections officers removed all of his legal documents and
his reading glasses from his cell for a period of approximately thirtynine days. Id. ¶¶ 17, 35.

(8)

The corrections officers dressed in protective gear visited his cell
on a daily basis and instructed him to stand, submit to handcuffs and
walk, but Mr. Stile was unable to do so because of his back problems.

8

Id. ¶¶ 18-19. As a result, the corrections officers assaulted and
battered him, forcibly placed him in a restraint chair, and electrically
shocked him. Id. When Mr. Stile lost continence, he was forced to
lie face down in his own urine. Id. ¶ 20.
(9)

Four times each day, the corrections officers forced Mr. Stile into
the restraint chair in such a way as to deliberately aggravate his
back problem. Id. ¶¶ 21, 29-30.

(10)

The corrections officers placed Mr. Stile into freezing cold

showers, refused to give him a towel, bedding or clothing and forced
him to lie shivering in his cell for hours. Id. ¶ 22.
(11)

Four times per day for nearly forty days, while transporting Mr.

Stile, the corrections officers deliberately stepped on his feet and toes
with their boots, causing his feet to turn black and blue. Id. ¶¶ 23,
25.
(12)

The corrections officers forced Mr. Stile to wear a so-called “turtle

suit”, which left his genitals exposed to female staff and embarrassed
and humiliated Mr. Stile. Id. ¶¶ 23-24.
(13)

For about forty days, the corrections officers shocked Mr. Stile

each evening before he was taken to the doctor and each time he was
returned to his cell. Id. ¶¶ 26-28.
(14)

The corrections officers deliberately housed Mr. Stile with

mentally ill inmates who constantly warned Mr. Stile about the

9

corrections officers and who caused him anxiety and emotional pain.
Id. ¶ 31.
(15)

The corrections officers failed to provide Mr. Stile with proper

hydration, and for approximately forty days Mr. Stile had extremely
limited amounts of water from his sink and eventually was unable to
reach for water due to his weakened condition. Id. ¶ 32.
(16)

The Jail held disciplinary board hearings without Mr. Stile being

present and denying him the ability to call witnesses or speak on his
own behalf. Id. ¶ 33.
(17)

The Jail denied Mr. Stile access to clergy and the ability to attend

religious services. Id. ¶ 34.
Regarding Mr. Allen specifically, Mr. Stile claims that Mr. Allen failed to take proper
disciplinary action against the corrections officers who were abusing him and he
makes general allegations against all of the Defendants, including Mr. Allen, for
violating his constitutional rights. Id. at 25-27.
2.

Legal Principles

Even after Iqbal, a court is still required to “assume the truth of all wellplead[ed] facts and give the plaintiff[] the benefit of all reasonable inferences
therefrom.” Genzyme Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 622 F.3d 62, 68 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting
Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007)). As Mr. Allen
points out, a court need not assume the truth of conclusory allegations, and the
complaint must state at least a “plausible claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

10

However, “[n]on-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint must . . . be treated
as true, even if seemingly incredible.” Ocasio–Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12. A court
may not “attempt to forecast a plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at
13. Furthermore, courts should be “solicitous of the obstacles that pro se litigants
face, 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, 158–59 (1st Cir.
2008).
A review of the recommended decision and Mr. Allen’s objection reveals
essential congruity on the legal standard for supervisory liability. The Magistrate
Judge observed that under Iqbal, courts must often turn to “judicial experience and
common sense”, Recommended Decision at 5 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679), and
must often make “a contextual judgment about the sufficiency of the pleadings.” Id.
(quoting Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 48 (1st Cir. 2009). Selecting a
different case, Mr. Allen quoted similar language from the First Circuit for the
imposition of supervisory liability as appears in the recommended decision: that a
plaintiff must demonstrate that his constitutional injury “resulted from direct acts or
omissions of the official, or from indirect conduct that amounts to condonation or tacit
authorization.” Recommended Decision at 4-5 (quoting Ocasio–Hernández, 640 F.3d
at 16); Allen Objection at 3 (The plaintiff must demonstrate “an affirmative link,
whether through direct participation or through conduct that amounts to condonation
or tacit authorization” between the actor and the underlying violation) (quoting
Camilo-Robles v. Zapata, 175 F.3d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1999)).

11

Mr. Stile alleges in his Amended Complaint Final that he got in an altercation
with one of the correction officer’s relatives, a fellow inmate, and that from then on,
the correction officers at the Somerset County Jail waged an ongoing, long and
deliberate campaign to physically and mentally abuse him, to unnecessarily and
repeatedly strip search him and subject him to visual body cavity searches, to leave
him naked for extended periods in his cell, to turn off the hot water when he showered
and to refuse to give him a towel, to improperly assign him to administrative
segregation, to refuse to properly process his grievances, to assault him, leaving him
black and blue, to deny him clergy, counsel, proper hydration, and visitors, to remove
his legal papers, to deprive him of his eyeglasses, and to subject him to daily taunts
and abuses.
Contrary to Mr. Allen’s position, it is a common sense and logical contextual
inference that if a Jail Administrator were doing his job, he would have some
knowledge of an inmate being treated in this fashion over the course of many months.
Under this rubric, it is proper for purposes of a motion to dismiss, to infer that Mr.
Allen either condoned or tacitly authorized what occurred. This conclusion obtains
regardless of the size of the jail and even assuming that the Magistrate Judge had no
right to observe that the Somerset County Jail is not a major metropolitan prison, a
proposition that seems dubious, the First Amended Complaint still survives
dismissal.

12

V.

CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s recommended

decision, together with the entire record, and has made a de novo determination of
all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision. The Court
concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth
in his Recommended Decision and for the additional reasons set forth in this Order.
The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision on Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 127).

The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in part and

DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim to the extent the
Plaintiff demands money damages against Defendant David Allen and the Court
DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent Defendant David Allen
demands dismissal of the supervisory liability claim against him under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
SO ORDERED.
/s/John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of February, 2015

13