ANCTIL v. FITZPATRICK et al

Filing 90

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ADDRESSING OTHER PENDING MOTIONS denying 70 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 80 Report and Recommendations; dismissing 81 Motion for Order; dismissing 82 Motion for Order By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEVE ANCTIL, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISIONER JOSEPH,
FITZPATRICK, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00107-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ADDRESSING
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
Having performed a de novo review, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended

decision

without

objection

in

which

the

Magistrate

Judge

recommended that the Court deny a deputy warden’s motion to dismiss an inmate’s
failure to protect and failure to train claim.
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Recommended Decision

On February 24, 2016, Steve Anctil, Jr., an inmate at the Maine State Prison,
filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a number of state of Maine
officials, contending that the prison system, specifically the Maine State Prison,
violated his civil rights by mishandling his grievances. Compl. (ECF No. 1). After
Mr. Anctil twice amended the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge screened the Second
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A and issued a
recommended decision on October 24, 2016. Recommended Decision After Screening
Compl. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A (ECF No. 36). In the recommended

decision, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss all of Mr.
Anctil’s claims, except the failure to protect/failure to train claim against Deputy
Warden Ross. Id. at 19. On September 27, 2017, the Court affirmed in part and
rejected in part the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision. Order Affirming in
Part and Rejecting in Part the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF
No. 68). The Court allowed not only the failure to protect/train claim against Deputy
Warden Ross to proceed, but also the legal mail claim against Commissioner
Fitzpatrick, Warden Bouffard, and Warden Liberty. Id. at 13-14.
On October 5, 2017, Deputy Warden Troy Ross filed a motion to dismiss Mr.
Anctil’s Second Amended Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss of Def. Troy Ross (ECF No. 70).
On November 8, 2017, Mr. Anctil responded to the motion to dismiss. Obj. to Def.
Ross’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 75). On December 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a recommended decision on Deputy Warden Ross’ motion to dismiss.
Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss of Def. Troy Ross (ECF No. 80). In the
recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the
motion to dismiss. Id. at 6. Deputy Warden Ross has not objected to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended decision.
B.

Other Motions

After the filing of the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision, Mr. Anctil
filed two additional motions that the Court addresses here: (1) a motion for
scheduling order; and (2) a motion for an order directing Deputy Ross to file an

2

answer to the complaint.1 Taking the second issue first, when Deputy Ross filed a
motion to dismiss, the time period for filing an answer is generally delayed until
fourteen days after notice of the court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss. FED. R. CIV. P.
12(a)(4)(A). Therefore, once Deputy Ross filed his motion to dismiss, by rule, he was
not required to file an answer. With the issuance of this decision, however, Deputy
Ross will be required to file an answer within fourteen days of notice of this decision.
Regarding the Scheduling Order, although a Scheduling Order could have
issued with the entry of appearance of counsel for each Defendant, it made more sense
to resolve whether the case was going to proceed against Deputy Ross before issuing
the Scheduling Order. Now that the motion to dismiss has been resolved, the Court
anticipates that a proposed Scheduling Order will issue forthwith.
The Court dismisses both of these motions as now moot.

II.

DISCUSSION
Despite the absence of objection on the part of Deputy Warden Ross to the

recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge, the Court performed a de novo review
of the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision, together with the entire record, and
the Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons
set forth in his recommended decision.

The Court AFFIRMS the recommended

Mr. Anctil also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Mem. of Law in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for a TRO and a Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 83). On April 10, 2018,
the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision on this motion. Recommended Decision on Pl.’s
Mot. for Inj. Relief (ECF No. 88). On April 27, 2018, Mr. Anctil moved for an extension of time to file
an objection to the recommended decision. Pl.’s Mot. for Extension of Time to File Obj. (ECF No. 89).
His objection is now due on May 2, 2018. Assuming Mr. Anctil files an objection, the Defendants will
have the right to respond. Therefore, the motion is not yet ripe for final adjudication.
1

3

decision of the Magistrate Judge and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant
Troy Ross (ECF No. 70).
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Request that Court Issue
Standard Scheduling Order (ECF No. 81) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order
Directing that Defendant Ross File an Answer to the Complaint (ECF No. 82).
SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of May, 2018

4