GLADU v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al

Filing 540

ORDER dismissing as moot 514 Objection to Order on Motion to Exclude Evidence. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS) (Main Document 540 replaced on 2/14/2018) (mlm). Modified on 2/14/2018 to replace pdf document with blue background to one with white background (mlm).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

2:15-cv-00384-JAW

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO ORDER ON
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
The description of the complicated background of this motion, order, and
objection explains why the issue presented by the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude
evidence is moot. On September 21, 2017, Nicholas Gladu moved for a temporary
restraining order and a motion for preliminary injunction in this case.1 Mot. for TRO
and Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 431). On September 29, 2017, the Correct Care Solution
(CCS) Defendants responded. Opp’n to Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 436).
In their opposition, the Maine Department of Corrections (DOC) Defendants
responded in part:
Defendants confirm that on August 23, 2017, plaintiff was meeting with
defendant Wendy Riebe in the interview room of his housing unit when
he struck her with a table fan. He was placed in a segregated cell, and
a short time later he began cutting himself with a razor he had secreted
on his person, causing a shutdown of the facility and a forcible cell
extraction. Copies of the reports of those incidents are attached to this
opposition. Plaintiff was transferred to the Maine State Prison the next

Mr. Gladu also moved for appointment of an independent expert and appointment of counsel
in the same motion. But neither of these motions is relevant to Mr. Gladu’s evidentiary objection.
1

day. The assault on Ms. Riebe is under investigation for possible
criminal prosecution.
Id. at 1-2. Also, on September 29, 2017, the Correct Care Solution Defendants
referred to this alleged incident in their opposition to Mr. Gladu’s motion for TRO
and preliminary injunction.

Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D.,

George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. for Expedited Evid. Hr’g,
Mot. for Issuance of a Subpoena to Dr. Ovidiu Rivis, Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj.
and Appointment of Independent Expert and Counsel, and Mot. to Expedite Ruling on
the Evid. Hr’g at 6 (ECF No. 438).
On October 23, 2017, Nicholas Gladu moved to exclude evidence of his
interaction with Wendy Riebe and his self-harm. Mot. to Exclude Evid. (ECF No.
456). Mr. Gladu objected to any reference to the incidents as irrelevant to the issues
in the case. Id. at 1. He accused the Defendants of attempting to use these episodes
to attack his character and cause him unfair prejudice. Id. He also disputed the
Defendants’ version of what happened with Ms. Riebe. Id. He stressed that, contrary
to the implication of DOC’s memorandum, there has been no criminal prosecution.
Id. at 2.

He challenged the Defendants to explain why these incidents were

admissible and for what purpose. Id.
On November 13, 2017, the Correct Care Solutions Defendants filed an
opposition to Mr. Gladu’s motion to exclude. Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert
Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Exclude
Evid. (ECF No. 480). They explained that they submitted the information about the
incident with Wendy Riebe not as character evidence, but in an effort to provide the
2

Court with a “full context of the interactions between Mr. Gladu and his providers at
CCS” and the “escalating nature of Mr. Gladu’s attempts to manipulate the CCS
providers and his attempts to direct his care.” Id. at 1-2. The DOC Defendants did
not respond to Mr. Gladu’s motion. On December 4, 2017, Mr. Gladu filed a reply to
the Correct Care Solutions Defendants’ response to his motion to exclude. Pl.’s Reply
to Def. Correct Care Solutions Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Exclude Evid. (ECF No. 494). Mr.
Gladu pointed out that he had still not been charged with a crime for this alleged
assault and he again argued that the alleged assault had no relevance to any of his
claims. Id. at 1.
On November 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision
on the motion for TRO and the motion for preliminary injunction. Recommended
Decision on Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 483). In his recommended
decision, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Mr. Gladu’s
motions but did not mention the evidence to which Mr. Gladu had objected. Id. at 15. On December 4, 2017, Mr. Gladu filed an objection to the recommended decision.
Pl.’s Obj. to Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 493). In his
objection, Mr. Gladu did not mention the incident with Wendy Riebe or his alleged
attempt at self-harm. Id. at 1. On December 6, 2017, the Court overruled Mr. Gladu’s
objection to the recommended decision on his motion for TRO and preliminary
injunction. Order Affirming Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 497). The
Court did not refer to the alleged Riebe and self-harm incidents in its order.

3

Meanwhile, motions for summary judgment that had been filed by all the
Defendants were wending their way to decision. On January 3, 2017, the DOC
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 261),
and on January 4, 2017, the Correct Care Solutions Defendants had filed their own
motion for summary judgment. Defs.’ Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D.,
George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 266). These
motions were filed before the alleged incident with Wendy Riebe on August 31, 2017
and his alleged self-harm.

Similarly, Mr. Gladu’s response to the motions for

summary judgment was filed on March 29, 2017 before the alleged incidents. Pl.’s
Br. in Resp. to Defs.’ Mots. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 341). Finally, the Correct Care
Solutions Defendants filed a reply on April 7, 2017, Reply to Opp’n to Mot. for Summ.
J. (ECF No. 353), and the DOC Defendants filed a reply on April 12, 2017. Defs.
Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy
Riebe’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 358).
These dispositive motions remained undecided while Mr. Gladu filed
innumerable other motions and a series of interlocutory appeals to the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit. On December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a
decision addressing a number of pending motions, including the two motions for
summary judgment, and recommended to the Court that it grant the motions for
summary judgment. Recommended Decision on Defs.’ Mots. for Summ. J. and Order
on Pl.’s Record-Related Mots. (ECF No. 512). Significantly, the Magistrate Judge

4

made no reference at all to the alleged Riebe incident or the alleged incident of selfharm in his recommended decision. Id. at 1-30.
Just before issuing the recommended decision on the motions for summary
judgment, on December 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to exclude
evidence, stating:
The Court will consider the subject evidence/information for the limited
purpose Defendants have offered the information. See Defendants’
Response (ECF No. 480). When evaluating the significance of the
information, the Court will also consider the arguments Plaintiff has
asserted in his motion and in his reply memorandum in support of his
motion. Any objections to this order shall be filed in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
Order Denying Mot. to Exclude Evid. (ECF No. 496). On December 18, 2017, Mr.
Gladu filed an objection to this order, essentially restating his earlier motion. Pl.’s
Obj. to Order on Mot. to Exclude Evid. (ECF No. 514). On January 2, 2018, the
Correct Care Defendants responded to Mr. Gladu’s objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s order. Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell,
D.O., and Wendy Riebe’s Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to Recommended Order Denying Mot. to
Exclude Evid. (ECF No. 519). In their response, the Correct Care Defendants noted
that the Magistrate Judge did not refer to this contested evidence in his rulings and
that the Magistrate Judge based his recommendations on matters that did not
involve this evidence. Id. at 1-2. The Correct Care Defendants urged the Court to
overrule the objection because it was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Id. at 2.
On January 2, 2018, Mr. Gladu objected to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended decision on the motions for summary judgment.
5

Pl.’s Obj. to the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision on Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 520).
Mr. Gladu did not mention the Riebe or self-harm incidents as a basis for his
objection. Id. at 1-8. Nor did the Correct Care Defendants mention this evidence in
their response to Mr. Gladu’s objection. Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton,
M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to Report and
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 525).
What this long description reveals is that the evidence of Mr. Gladu’s
interaction with Wendy Riebe on August 31, 2017 and his alleged attempt at selfharm were never properly before the Court on the pending motions for summary
judgment. They were not contained in any of the statements of material fact, which
predated the alleged incidents. They were not mentioned in the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended decision, in Mr. Gladu’s objection to the recommended decision, or in
the Defendant Correct Care Solutions’ response. In sum, the alleged incidents did
not affect the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations and, as is evident in the order
that the Court is issuing contemporaneously with this order, the Court has not
considered the alleged incidents in reviewing those recommendations.
Nor did evidence of the alleged Riebe and self-harm incidents have any effect
on the disposition of the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction. Neither the
Magistrate Judge nor this Court mentioned either alleged incident in arriving at the
decisions on the motion.
Accordingly, even though the incidents were mentioned by both Defendants in
their filings in the fall of 2017, neither the Magistrate Judge nor the Court actually

6

considered either incident in arriving at the decisions to date and the Court has not
considered them in analyzing the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations on the
pending motions for summary judgment, Mr. Gladu’s objections to the recommended
decision, or the response to his objections. Because these alleged incidents have not
been considered for any purposes before the Court, the Court DISMISSES as moot
Plaintiff’s Objection to Order on Motion to Exclude Evidence (ECF No. 514).
SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of February, 2018

7