Wallace v. Sheriff James DiPaloa et al

Filing 29

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for Discovery (Zierk, Marsha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO.
10-12122-RGS
WILLIE WALLACE
v.
MIDDLESEX SHERIFF JAMES DIPAOLA, et al.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY
August 15, 2011
STEARNS, D.J.
This Complaint is brought by pro se plaintiff Willie Wallace against James
DiPaola, the Middlesex County Sheriff, certain superintending officials of the
Middlesex County jail, a correction officer, and certain of the jail’s medical personnel,
known and unknown. Service has been made on all defendants by the U.S. Marshal.
Plaintiff has since the filing of the Complaint been released from custody, having
completed his sentence. The court will order as follows.
(1) The named defendants (with the exception of DiPaola, McAdam, and Milton)
will file Answers to the Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this
Order.
(2) The prayers for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2, based
on the alleged failure of defendants to provide plaintiff with Muslim religious services
and Halal dietary meals are DISMISSED as moot in the absence of a case controversy

(plaintiff having been released from custody). See Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1267
(11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossaman v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651
(2011).
(3) The claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants
DiPaola, McAdam, and Milton, who are sued in their official capacities only, and
Murphy to the extent sued in his official capacity, for alleged violations of plaintiff’s
rights under RLUIPA and for alleged retaliation for the exercise of plaintiff’s First
Amendment rights, as well as monetary claims asserted against any defendant sued in
his or her official capacity for failure to provide adequate medical care are
DISMISSED as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-67 (1989); Sossaman, 131 S. Ct. at 1663.
(4) The claims for compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants
named in their individual capacity for emotional suffering caused by alleged violations
of plaintiff’s rights under RLUIPA are DISMISSED as barred by the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) (a prisoner may not bring a federal
civil action “for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior
showing of physical injury”).
(5) Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief in the form of an order for the
immediate provision of medical treatment is DISMISSED as moot.
(6) There being no viable claims remaining against defendants DiPaola,
McAdam, and Milton, they are DISMISSED from this lawsuit and are excused from
filing an Answer.
(7) With respect to plaintiff’s motion for discovery, the remaining defendants
shall within twenty-one days of filing an Answer provide plaintiff with responses to
requests nos. 3, 4, 5, 12, and 13. In all other respects, the motion for discovery is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

3