MCBRIDE et al v. CITY OF WESTBROOK

Filing 26

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56 By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (nwd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KEVIN MCBRIDE

AND

ANNE BLAKE,
PLAINTIFFS

V.

THE CITY OF WESTBROOK,
MELISSA MAY, TIMOTHY MORRELL
AND THOMAS ROTH,
DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:13-CV-272-DBH

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56
A Local Rule 56 pre-filing conference was held on June 10, 2014.
The plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint asserts two constitutional claims
against all the defendants―a procedural due process claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment for the illegal eviction from an apartment by issuing a
“no trespass” notice and a First Amendment claim for violation of their rights to
freely associate and assemble after serving the plaintiffs “no trespass” notices
banning them from visiting the apartment building.1 The parties agreed at the
conference that the plaintiff Blake does not have a procedural due process claim,
which leaves the plaintiff McBride’s procedural due process claim and both
plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims.

The defendants will move for summary

Counts I and III of the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) both allege procedural due process
violations based on the same underlying conduct and are asserted against all defendants. The
only apparent distinction in these claims is that Count I alleges an unlawful “pattern and
practice” in the deprivation―the standard for municipal liability. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978).
1

judgment on those claims and the officer defendants will raise qualified
immunity as a defense. With respect to the due process claim, the defendants
will argue that there was no deprivation of due process when the plaintiff
McBride was issued the “no trespass” notice both because he had no property
interest and because he had post-deprivation remedies available.
The following deadlines and page limits were established by agreement:
By July 7, 2014, the defendants will propose stipulated facts
to the plaintiffs.
By July 14, 2014, the plaintiffs will notify the defendants of
the facts that they will stipulate for the summary judgment
motion.
By August 1, 2014, the defendants will file their motion for
summary judgment with necessary supporting materials
By August 22, 2014, the plaintiffs will respond to the motion
for summary judgment with necessary supporting materials.
By September 5, 2014, the defendants will file their reply.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 16TH

DAY OF

JUNE, 2014
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2