WITHAM v. ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE et al
Filing
58
ORDER affirming in part 48 Report and Recommendations; denying 7 Objection to Removal; granting in part 23 Motion to Dismiss; denying in part and dismissing in part 53 Motion to Amend. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jgw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GLEN A. WITHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-00078-JAW
ORDER ON RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 2, 2012, Glen A. Witham filed a complaint in Androscoggin
County Superior Court against the Androscoggin County Sheriff’s Office and the
Androscoggin County Commissioners, alleging that they violated his federal
constitutional rights by removing him from a rehabilitation facility. Compl. (ECF
No. 2-5).
These Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 6, 2012.
Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). Mr. Witham objected to the removal. Pl.’s Opp’n to
Def.’s Removal of Case from State Ct. (ECF No. 7). Mr. Witham subsequently filed a
Verified Complaint and Amended Verified Complaint adding Defendants as well as
claims under the Maine Tort Claims Act; the Amended Verified Complaint also
alleged additional constitutional violations, including an alleged violation of Mr.
Witham’s Fourth Amendment rights. Verified Compl. (ECF No. 12); Am. Verified
Compl. (ECF No. 14). On April 30, 2012, Defendants Androscoggin County Sheriff’s
Department, Androscoggin County Commissioner’s Office, Guy Desjardins, Maurice
Drouin, James Jacques, Glenn Holt, William Gagne, Ray LaFrance, and Michael
Lemay (County Defendants) jointly moved pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) to
dismiss the Verified Complaint in its entirety and the Amended Verified Complaint
as it relates to them. County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Verified Compl. and Partially
Dismiss Am. Verified Compl. (ECF No. 23).
On July 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny
Mr. Witham’s objection to removal, dismiss with prejudice all claims against the
moving Defendants, and dismiss without prejudice all other claims. Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 48). Mr. Witham objected on July 30, 2012. Objection to Report
& Recommended Decision (ECF No. 51).
August 16, 2012.
The moving Defendants responded on
The County Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Objections to Magistrate’s
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 52). On October 12, 2012, Mr. Witham filed an
additional memorandum in support of his objections. Mem. of Law in Support of
Pl.’s Objection to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss on Basis of 180 Day Limitation in Tort
Claims Act (ECF No. 55).
Additionally, on September 10, 2012, Mr. Witham moved to amend his
Complaint. Mot. for Leave of Ct. to Amend & Assert Pl.’s Reservation of Rights, 11
M.R.S.A. §§1-1308 Et. Seq., to Present Further Causes of Action (ECF No. 53) (Pl.’s
Mot. to Amend). On October 1, 2012, the County Defendants objected to the motion
to amend. Cnty. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave of Ct. to Amend and Assert Pl.’s
2
Reservation of Rights 11 M.R.S.A. § 1-1308, Et. Seq., to Present Further Causes of
Action (ECF No. 54).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision
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 therein.
The Court concurs with the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Witham’s objections to removal
lack merit for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision. The Court also
concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Witham has
failed to state a viable federal claim for the reasons set forth in her Recommended
Decision. In addition, the Court observes that Mr. Witham has not objected to that
portion of the Recommended Decision that addressed his federal claim related to his
removal from the rehabilitation facility and therefore he has waived the right to
challenge that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision.
This leaves the Maine Tort Claims Act claim. The Court does not reach the
question of whether Mr. Witham had “good cause” for failing to comply with the
180-day notice requirement for claims under the Maine Tort Claims Act. See 14
M.R.S. § 8107(1). Given the absence of any viable federal claims, the Court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this and all other remaining questions of
state law, and remands the case to Androscoggin County Superior Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir.
3
1995) (“As a general principle, the unfavorable disposition of a plaintiff’s federal
claims at the early stages of a suit, well before the commencement of trial, will
trigger the dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental state-law claims”);
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988) (“the animating principle
behind the pendent jurisdiction doctrine supports giving a district court discretion
to remand when the exercise of pendent jurisdiction is inappropriate”); see, e.g.,
Wainwright v. Cnty. of Oxford, 369 F. Supp. 2d 3, 9 (D. Me. 2005) (remanding the
case to state court upon dismissal of the federal count).
B.
The Motion for Leave to Amend
In his motion for leave to amend, Mr. Witham seeks to amend his Complaint
to assert a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, to allege two new statebased torts, comparative negligence and libel and slander, and to claim that the
Defendants committed numerous federal crimes and one state crime. Pl.’s Mot. to
Amend at 1-13. To the extent that Mr. Witham seeks to allege a new federal cause
of action, his Complaint would still be subject to dismissal with prejudice for the
reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge in the Recommended Decision and
therefore his motion is denied to this extent as futile. To the extent Mr. Witham
seeks to amend his Complaint to allege new state torts, the Court concludes that
the state court will be in a better position to evaluate the sufficiency of those
allegations and the Court dismisses his motion on those claims without prejudice so
that, if he chooses to do so, he may reinitiate the motion upon remand to the state
court. Finally, as regards the claims of criminal violations, the Court observes that
4
as a private citizen, Mr. Witham is not authorized to initiate a criminal case and
therefore the proposed claims would be futile. To that extent, the Court denies the
motion to amend with prejudice.
III.
CONCLUSION
1. The Court AFFIRMS in part the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 48);
2. The Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Removal (ECF No.
7);
3. The Court GRANTS in part the County Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 23) insofar as it relates to federal claims and
DISMISSES with prejudice all federal claims asserted in the
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2-5), Verified Complaint (ECF No.
12), and Amended Verified Complaint (ECF No. 14);
4. The Court DENIES in part and DISMISSES in part the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave of Court to Amend & Assert Plaintiff’s
Reservation of Rights, 11 M.R.S.A. §§1-1308 Et. Seq., to Present
Further Causes of Action (ECF No. 53). The Court DENIES the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend insofar as it attempts to state a new
federal cause of action based on the same set of earlier asserted
facts and DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend insofar as it
attempts to state a private claim for alleged violations of federal
and state criminal statutes. The Court DISMISSES without
prejudice the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend insofar as it states new
state tort claims;
5. The Court REMANDS the case to Androscoggin County Superior
Court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of October, 2012
5
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?