JAMES v. BUENO et al

Filing 49

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 31 MOTION for Entry of Default filed by MICHEAL J JAMES. Objections to R&R due by 11/14/2016. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MICHAEL J. JAMES,
Plaintiff
v.
ERIC BUENO , et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00416-NT

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND;
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
In this action, Plaintiff Michael James, an inmate at the Maine State Prison, alleges
Defendants deprived him of certain federal rights when they placed him in solitary confinement
based on false accusations. (Complaint at 3, ¶ IV.) He asserts the confinement included the use
of excessive force. (Id.)
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Defendant
Joy Hall (ECF No. 31) and Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 29) through which he requests
leave to join two additional defendants.
After review of the motions, I grant in part the motion to amend, and recommend the Court
deny the motion for default judgment.
A.

Motion for Default Judgment
Plaintiff filed this action on August 15, 2016. The U.S. Marshal served Defendant Hall on

September 21, 2016. (Process Receipt and Return, ECF No. 28.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(a), Defendant Hall was required to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within
21 days of service. On October 12, 2016, Defendant Hall filed a motion to dismiss, which

1

constitutes a responsive pleading to the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Defendant Hall thus
filed a response to Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to the entry of default judgment.
B.

Motion to Amend
In support of his motion to amend, Plaintiff asserts he can now identify two additional

defendants, Samantha Kieltyka and Stephen Pease, whose names were not known to him when he
filed his complaint. Particularly in initial stages of a case, leave to amend should be freely given.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, leave to amend is properly denied for “undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of
the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). A “futile”
amendment is one that “would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Glassman
v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996). In other words, “if the proposed
amendment would be futile because, as thus amended, the complaint still fails to state a claim, the
district court acts within its discretion in denying the motion to amend.” Boston & Me. Corp. v.
Hampton, 987 F.2d 855, 868 (1st Cir. 1993).
To determine whether Plaintiff has stated a claim against the proposed defendants, the
Court must “assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff[] the benefit of all
reasonable inferences therefrom.” Blanco v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 802 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (D.
Me. 2011) (quoting Genzyme Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 622 F.3d 62, 68 (1st Cir. 2010)). To state a
claim, Plaintiff must establish that his allegations raise a plausible basis for a factfinder to conclude
that the proposed defendant is legally responsible for the alleged claims. Id.

2

1.

Samantha Kieltyka

Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim against Samantha Kieltyka, a registered nurse employed
at the Maine State Prison by Correct Care Solutions. Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts
regarding Ms. Kieltyka’s conduct. Plaintiff thus has failed to assert any facts from which a
factfinder could plausibly conclude Ms. Kieltyka violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The
requested amendment to join Ms. Kieltyka as a party, therefore, would be futile.
2.

Stephen Pease

Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim against Stephen Pease, a corrections officer who works in
the Intensive Mental Health Unit of the Maine State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that on September
19, 2016, through the use of excessive force, Mr. Pease fractured Plaintiff’s wrist. (Motion at 1 –
2.) Plaintiff’s allegations against Mr. Pease are sufficient, at this stage of the proceedings, to
support a claim. Plaintiff’s request to join Stephen Pease as a party is granted.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 29) is granted in
part to permit Plaintiff to join Stephen Pease as a party. The allegations in the motion set forth
against Mr. Pease shall be incorporated into the complaint. Service of the amended complaint
upon Mr. Pease is authorized. The request to join Samantha Kieltyka as a party is denied. In
addition, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant
Hall (ECF No. 31).
NOTICE
Any objection to this Recommended Decision and Order shall be filed in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to the order on non-dispositive
matters (order on the 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).

3

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 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 27th day of October, 2016.

4