BARNARD v. STATE OF MAINE et al
Filing
14
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT withdrawing in part 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION. Objections to R&R due by 9/6/2016 By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (mlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JEFFREY PAUL BARNARD,
Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF MAINE, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:16-cv-00276-JAW
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND;
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT
In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleged excessive force was used against him during a
May 31, 2014, encounter with law enforcement officials. (ECF No. 1.) Following a review of the
complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 29 U.S.C. §1915A(a), I recommended:
[U]nless within the time to file an objection to this recommended decision, Plaintiff
files an amended complaint in which he asserts an actionable claim against one or
more of the named Defendants, the Court dismiss all state, county, and municipal
entities named in the caption of Plaintiff’s complaint. I also recommend the Court
construe the complaint to assert a federal claim against Officer Troy Bires, and order
service of the complaint against Officer Bires. Finally, I recommend the Court
determine that Plaintiff cannot assert a claim on behalf of his wife, Vicki Barnard, and,
to the extent Plaintiff has asserted a claim on her behalf, the Court dismiss the claim,
subject to Vicki Barnard’s right to assert a claim on her own behalf.
(Recommended Decision at 5, ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff subsequently moved to amend his complaint.
(ECF No. 11.) The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, through which
motion Plaintiff seeks to reassert his claims against the previously named defendants, join
numerous additional defendants in his claim based on his encounter with law enforcement, and
assert claims against a group of defendants based on conditions of confinement at the Somerset
County Jail.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) permits Plaintiff to amend his complaint once as
a matter of course within 21 days of service of the complaint. Because of the preliminary review
and recommended decision, the complaint has not been served upon any Defendant. In accordance
with Rule 15, therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted.
Given that Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, and given that he seeks
relief from governmental entities, officers, and employees, his amended complaint is subject to
preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(a). After the review, I
recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s federal and state claims against the State of Maine, the
Maine State Police, and Maine Attorney General Janet Mills, dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claim
against the municipal defendants, and dismiss or sever Plaintiff’s claims regarding the conditions
of confinement at the Somerset County Jail.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time
if the court determines,” inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals [under § 1915]
are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants
the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324 (1989).
In addition to the review contemplated by § 1915, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is subject
to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because Plaintiff currently is incarcerated and
seeks redress from governmental entities and officers. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The
§ 1915A screening requires courts to “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim …; or
2
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted,
courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.
2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “The relevant question ... in assessing plausibility is not whether the
complaint makes any particular factual allegations but, rather, whether ‘the complaint warrant[s]
dismissal because it failed in toto to render plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief plausible.’” Rodríguez–
Reyes v. Molina–Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n.
14). Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is subject to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the complaint may not
consist entirely of “conclusory allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard,” Young
v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013).
DISCUSSION
Through his motion to amend and his amended complaint, Plaintiff provides more detailed
factual allegations in an attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the recommended
decision. In addition, Plaintiff attempts to add new claims related to conditions of confinement at
the Somerset County Jail.
A.
Plaintiff’s Claims Regarding the May 31, 2014, Encounter with Law Enforcement
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts two types of claims arising from the May 31,
2014, encounter. (Am. Compl. at 1.) First, Plaintiff alleges an excessive force claim under 42
3
U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 allows people within the jurisdiction of the United States to bring
civil lawsuits against those who, under color of law, deprive them ‘of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’” Ayotte v. Barnhart, 973 F. Supp. 2d 70, 78
(D. Me. 2013) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Plaintiff also asserts state law claims for assault and
negligence.
1.
Claims against officers
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face” for excessive force against some of the named defendants. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. That is, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim against the named
defendants who allegedly participated in the May 31 incident.
As alleged, Defendant Bires pointed a gun in Plaintiff’s face and Defendant Duff shot
Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Tokas was present and that every officer present at
the scene “assaulted and attacked” Plaintiff and his wife while they were in their trailer home,
including by shooting into the home, throwing rocks at the home, trying to break a window with a
robot, and using an armored vehicle to penetrate and push the home. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 24.)
Plaintiff, therefore, has stated a section 1983 excessive force claim against Defendants Bires, Duff
and Tokas.1
Plaintiff, however, has alleged no facts that would support a federal claim against any of
the other named defendants based on his encounter with law enforcement. That is, Plaintiff has
not alleged the other defendants were present at the scene, nor has he alleged facts from which a
fact finder could reasonably determine that any of the other defendants were responsible under
1
Plaintiff has also asserted an actionable state law tort claim against Defendants Bires, Duff and Tokas despite the
immunity for discretionary acts afforded by the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C). “If an officer uses
excessive force in executing an arrest, such action is beyond the scope of the officer’s discretion.” Richards v. Town
of Eliot, 780 A.2d 281, 282 (Me. 2001).
4
federal law for the actions of Defendants Bires, Duff and Tokas. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim against Rob Angelo, Harold Page, Robert Williams, the Hancock County Sheriff,
and Deputies Campbell and Frost.
2.
Claims against the State of Maine
Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable § 1983 claim against the State of Maine and the
Maine State Police. The State of Maine and its agencies are not amenable to suit on a claim for
violation of federal rights brought pursuant to § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989); Wang v. New Hampshire Bd. of Registration in Med., 55 F.3d 698, 700
(1st Cir. 1995). Moreover, absent consent or waiver, the State of Maine and its agencies are
immune under the Eleventh Amendment from money damage suits by private citizens brought in
federal court, which immunity applies both to Plaintiff’s federal claims and to his state claims.
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99–100 (1984); Coggeshall v.
Massachusetts Bd. of Registration of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658, 662 (1st Cir. 2010); Warren v.
Maine State Prison, 490 F. Supp. 2d 9, 12 n.1 (D. Me. 2007); 14 M.R.S. § 8118.2
3.
Claims against the municipal entities
Plaintiff has also failed to state an actionable § 1983 claim against the City of Ellsworth,
the Ellsworth Police Department, the City of Bangor, and the Bangor Police Department. To assert
a section 1983 claim against a municipal entity, Plaintiff must allege facts that would support a
plausible finding that the constitutional violation was based on a custom or policy. Saldivar v.
2
Pursuant to § 8118 of the Maine Tort Claims Act:
Nothing in this chapter or any other provision of state law shall be construed to waive the rights and
protections of the State under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, except
where such waiver is explicitly stated by law and actions against the State for damages shall only
be brought in the courts of the State in accordance with this chapter.
5
Racine, 818 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2016). Plaintiff has not identified a policy or custom maintained
by the City of Ellsworth/Ellsworth Police Department or the City of Bangor/Bangor Police
Department pursuant to which the individual defendants acted. Plaintiff also has not identified an
official employed by either municipality who was involved in the encounter or supervised the
officers at the time, who also had the authority to establish municipal policy or custom regarding
the encounter, and whose conduct reflected deliberate indifference to a grave risk of harm. Id.
4.
Claims against the Attorney General
Plaintiff has not asserted any facts to suggest that the Attorney General participated in or
supervised anyone who participated in Plaintiff’s encounter with law enforcement. Additionally,
to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims against the Attorney General in her official capacity, the claims
are essentially against the state and thus fail. Will, 491 U.S. at 71 (“[A] suit against a state official
in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s
office. As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.”).
B.
Plaintiff’s Claims Involving Conditions of Confinement at the Somerset County Jail
Plaintiff included in his amended complaint claims against defendants who were not
involved in the May 31, 2014, incident with law enforcement officials. In particular, Plaintiff
asserts claims against multiple defendants, including corrections personnel and medical care
providers, based on certain conditions of confinement at the Somerset County Jail. The claims
include allegations of deliberate indifference to medical needs, one or more incidents of excessive
force in the prison context, the violation of due process, and disability discrimination.
Although Plaintiff has arguably asserted sufficient facts to state a claim against at least
some of the Somerset County Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims should nevertheless be dismissed
6
without prejudice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit defendants to be joined in one
action if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative
with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). “The purpose of the rule is ‘to promote trial convenience and expedite the
final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.’” Arista Records LLC v.
Does 1-27, 584 F. Supp. 2d 240, 251 (D. Me. 2008) (quoting 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652, at 395 (3d ed. 2001)).
Plaintiff’s attempt to join the Somerset County Defendants in this action arising out of a
distinct incident on May 31, 2014, does not satisfy the Rule 20 standard for permissive joinder.
The matters do not arise out of the same incident, nor do they involve common questions of law
or fact. Furthermore, the joinder of the claims would not otherwise promote trial convenience or
judicial economy. Plaintiff, therefore, should not be permitted to join all of the claims in one
action.3
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis,
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 11) is granted, and Plaintiff’s proposed
amended complaint is accepted for filing and will be docketed as the operative
pleading;
Without commenting on the merit of Plaintiff’s potential claims against the Somerset County Defendants, the
recommendation is not intended to preclude Plaintiff from asserting the claims in a separate action.
3
7
2. The June 14, 2016, Recommended Decision (ECF No. 4) is withdrawn as it relates to
the claims Plaintiff asserted on his behalf;
3. The June 14, 2016, Recommended Decision (ECF No. 4) remains for the Court’s
consideration as to the recommended dismissal of the claim Plaintiff attempted to assert
on behalf of Vicki Barnard;4
4. I recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Maine, the
Maine State Police, and Attorney General Janet Mills, Harold Page, Rob Angelo, the
City of Ellsworth, the Ellsworth Police Department, the City of Bangor, the Bangor
Police Department, Robert Williams, the Hancock County Sheriff, and Deputies
Campbell and Frost;
5. I recommend the Court dismiss without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to assert a
separate action the claims against the Somerset County Defendants, or sever the claims
against the Somerset County Defendants;5 and
6. I recommend the Court order service of the amended complaint upon Troy Bires, Scott
Duff, and Barton Tokas.
NOTICE
Any objection to this Memorandum of Decision and Recommended Decision shall
be filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to the order on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, a party may serve and file objections within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
With respect to the recommendations made herein, a party may file objections to
those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) for
which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting
memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy. A responsive
4
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff did not address the claim of Vicki Barnard.
5
In the event the Court severs the claims, the claims would be subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
and 29 U.S.C. §1915A(a) before service upon any of the named Somerset County Defendants.
8
memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the
objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute
a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district
court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 19th day of August, 2016.
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?