STILE v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF et al

Filing 241

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND TIME denying 235 Objection By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES STILE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
SHERIFF, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00406-JAW

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

I.

BACKGROUND
On October 14, 2014, James Stile filed a civil complaint against Cumberland

County and twenty Cumberland County corrections officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging that the Defendants violated various of his constitutional rights by
means including using excessive force against him while he was a pretrial detainee.
Compl. (ECF No. 1). The case has inched along for over three and one-half years;
progress has been incremental at best.
The dispositive motion deadline became a moving target, and on July 18, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge ordered that the dispositive motion deadline be thirty days
after the Defendants completed Mr. Stile’s deposition. Am. Scheduling Order at 1
(ECF No. 55); Order (ECF No. 103); Report of Telephone Conf. and Order at 4 (ECF
No. 135). On August 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an order establishing

September 15, 2017 as the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Order Removing
Stay/Establishing Mot. Deadline (ECF No. 195).

On September 19, 2017, this

deadline was extended to December 1, 2017. Order (ECF No. 200).
On October 6, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings and for summary judgment. Defs.’ Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and for
Summ. J. (ECF No. 204). Mr. Stile’s responses were initially due by October 27, 2017,
but on February 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge allowed an extension until March
23, 2018. Procedural Order at 1 (ECF No. 221). Then on March 5, 2018, Mr. Stile
moved for another extension and made other motions. Mot. for Extension of Time to
Resp. to Summ. J. Mot. and for Court to Issue Writ to the United States Marshals
Serv./U.S. Att’y General for Transfer of Pl. to Danbury Conn. F.C.I. (ECF No. 223);
On May 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge extended his response deadline to June 15,
2018. Order Granting Pl.’s Mots. for Order Regarding Disc., to Extend Time to File
Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., and for Transfer (ECF No. 231). Mr. Stile has yet to
respond to the dispositive motions now pending over nine months. As part of the
Magistrate Judge’s May 29, 2018 order, he addressed Mr. Stile’s motion for transfer
and his motion for an order regarding the production of discovery. The Magistrate
Judge denied the motion for order of transfer. Id. at 3. He also denied Mr. Stile’s
motion for discovery, stating that he was “satisfied that the documents produced by
Defendants were forwarded to Plaintiff’s current facility and are available to
Plaintiff.” Id. at 2.

2

II.

JAMES STILE’S OBJECTION
On June 11, 2018, Mr. Stile objected to the May 29, 2018 order of the

Magistrate Judge. Pl.’s Obj. to Magistrate’s Order as Concerns Pl.’s Mots. for Order
Regarding Disc., to Extend Time to File Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., and for Transfer
(ECF No. 235). In his motion to extend time, Mr. Stile recited a history “beginning
in November of 2017” of what he claims has been “obstruction of the Plaintiff in
meeting the Court deadlines in complet[]ing his responses to the summary judgment
motions filed by the Defendants.” Id. At the end, Mr. Stile says that he “anticipates
a need for 90 days to complete the responses to the remaining dispositive motions
allowing he can get reasonable access to laptop computer to review the CD/DVD/s.”
Id. at 6. Mr. Stile admits that “[w]ithout that access, it does not matter how long the
Court grants in extensions, the responses will not get done.” Id. Mr. Stile stresses
that he “MUST have access to the DC/DVD’s as they are a necessary element to
responding to the dispositive motions especially as voluminous as these are.” Id.
Finally, Mr. Stile reiterates his continued demand that the Court order the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to transfer him to Strafford County Jail in New Hampshire
where he would have “unimpeded access to a computer, LEXIS NEXIS, postage and
copies and would thereby be better equipped to expeditiously finish the responses to
the dispositive motions.” Id. Mr. Stile claims that this “can be done in the interests
of justice.” Id.

3

III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

The standard for reviewing a non-dispositive order of a Magistrate Judge is
that the order must be either “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

The Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s May

29, 2018 order based on a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. “A finding
is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948); United States v. Urban Lot St. G. 103, 819 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2016); Bennett v.
Kent Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 623 F. Supp. 2d 246, 250 (D.R.I. 2009). “A finding is contrary
to law if the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law.”
Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 32 F. Supp. 2d 162, 164 (D.N.J. 1998).
B.

Judicial Transfer Authority

Turning to the last issue first, Mr. Stile is simply incorrect in asserting that
this Court has the authority to transfer him to Strafford County Jail in New
Hampshire or the Danbury, Connecticut F.C.I. The United States Supreme Court
has written that Congress has given the BOP “plenary control, subject to statutory
constraints, over ‘the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment.’” Tapia v. United States,
564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)).

4

Federal law permits a court to make a recommendation to the BOP, “[b]ut
decisionmaking authority rests with the BOP.” Id. at 331. The applicable statutory
provision is 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1):
[The BOP] shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner
serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of
that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford
that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the
reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may
include a community correctional facility.
Federal law also provides that a sentencing court may make a recommendation that
a prisoner serve a term of imprisonment in a residential reentry center. 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b). But the recommendation has no binding effect. Id.
Here, the Court has no basis either to make a recommendation to the BOP
regarding where it should house Mr. Stile or to conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s
decision to decline to order the BOP to transfer Mr. Stile was either clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. This is particularly true because Mr. Stile is now demanding that
the BOP transfer him to a state-run facility in New Hampshire.
C.

The June 15, 2018 Extension Date

The Court arrives at the same conclusion regarding Mr. Stile’s objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s decision to extend the time within which Mr. Stile must respond
to the pending dispositive motions to June 15, 2018. The Court will not disturb the
factual findings in the Magistrate Judge’s order and his discretionary decision to
extend the time within which to respond to the pending dispositive motions to June
15, 2018.

5

The Court notes that this case has now been pending for over three and onehalf years, making the case one of the oldest civil cases on the docket. Mr. Stile
himself has caused a substantial part of the delay in the resolution of this case by
filing an interlocutory appeal on July 25, 2016, Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 142),
and dismissing it on August 26, 2016. J. of the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit (ECF No. 158). His filing of a second interlocutory appeal on September
6, 2016, Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 163), which the First Circuit dismissed on
July 19, 2017, J. of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (ECF No.
193), also caused substantial delay. In addition to these interlocutory appeals, Mr.
Stile has filed countless motions, objections, and motions to reconsider orders, as is
evidenced by the fact that the docket itself now has two hundred forty entries.
Indeed, Mr. Stile demands that the Court extend the deadline another ninety
days to September 15, 2018 for his responses to dispositive motions that were filed
on October 6, 2017, giving him almost one year to file a response to a motion that
would normally have been responded to by October 27, 2017. See D. ME. LOC. R. 7(b)
(“Unless within 21 days after the filing of a motion the opposing party files written
objection thereto, incorporating a memorandum of law, the opposing party shall be
deemed to have waived objection”). But Mr. Stile goes on to add that he might not be
able to comply with that extension because of a dispute he is having with the BOP
about access to discovery materials.
The Court resolves that it will immediately begin the process of reviewing the
Defendants’ dispositive motions as they now stand. If Mr. Stile is able to file a

6

response to those motions before the Court issues the order, the Court will consider
his responses and will allow the Defendants fourteen days to reply from the date of
Mr. Stile’s filing. D. ME. LOC. R. 7(c). If Mr. Stile has filed no response to the
dispositive motions by the date that the Court has completed its review of the pending
motions, the Court will issue an order based only on its review of the merits of the
motions as filed.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Order as

Concerns Plaintiff’s Motions for Order Regarding Discovery, to Extend Time to File
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Transfer (ECF No. 235). The
Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s objection insofar as he seeks a transfer order and a
discovery order. The Court also DENIES his objection to the June 15, 2018 deadline
imposed by the Magistrate Judge for his response to the pending dispositive motions;
however, if James Stile files a response before the Court issues its order on the merits
of the pending dispositive motions, the Court will consider any such filing.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of July, 2018

7