Washington v. St. Amand et al
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Statement with Respect to Entry of Separate and Final Order of Judgment. [Copy mailed to plaintiff on 11/08/17.](PSSA, 3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
PETER ST. AMAND, et al.,
C.A. No. 11-10771-PBS
First Circuit No. 17-2030
STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ENTRY OF
SEPARATE AND FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENT
November 8, 2017
Upon an unopposed motion of defendant Maryjo Gagliani, on
October 2, 2017, the Court entered a separate and final judgment
in favor of her (#179).
Thereafter, plaintiff Derrick
Washington, who is proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal
as to the partial judgment (#187).
In response to the directive
of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
(#191), the Court now sets forth a statement with respect to the
separate and final judgment in favor of Gagliano.
In the plaintiff’s amended complaint (#40), he claims that
defendant Maryjo Gagliani “exercised deliberate indifference to
plaintiff’s health by failing to provide adequate medical care
to him” following the alleged use of excessive force by
correction officers at MCI Cedar Junction.
Amend. Compl. ¶ 43.
Gagliani is the only medical care provider named as a defendant.
Upon her motion, Judge Woodlock, who presided over this action
at the time, referred the matter to the state Medical
Malpractice Tribunal (“Tribunal”), which found in favor of
On March 28, 2015, Judge Woodlock entered an
electronic order (#118) granting Gagliani’s motion to dismiss
based on Washington’s failure to post the bond required under
M.G.L. ch. 231 § 60B.
This case was reassigned to the undersigned on April 27,
2017, more than two years after Gagliani had been dismissed from
this action. On September 12, 2017, Gagliani filed a motion for
a separate and final judgment (#175), which the plaintiff did
Gagliani had argued: “The Suffolk Superior Court
dismissed the only claim against Ms. Gagliani.
attempts to appeal that dismissal have been futile . . . . The
counts against the remaining Defendants are not related to
Ms. Gagliani; they involve constitutional claims, as well as
claims concerning alleged violations involving prison policies.”
Mot. at 2 (emphasis added).
The Court allowed the motion.
Upon further examination of docket, the Court believes that
it erred in entering the partial judgment because the plaintiff
also brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against her which
the prior judge did not address.
Having entered the order, the
Court is now without jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Should the First Circuit deem it appropriate to remand this
case, the Court would vacate the entry of partial judgment and
address the § 1983 claim.
The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
/s/ Patti B. Saris ______________
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?