Carr v. Colon et al

Filing 15

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Clerk shall issue summonses with respect to: (1) William Colon; (2) Marlon Medero; (3) Kevin Fountaine; (4) Lisa Castoldi; (5) Christopher Hyde; (6) Pamela M O'Dell; (7) Joshua Fr ates; (8) Guard Griffin; (9) Superintendent Thomas Dickhaut; (10) Guard Tatro; (11) Kristie Ladouceur; (12) Lt. Keezer; (13) Guard Beach; (14) Lawrence Weiner; and (15) Dentist Oh;The Clerk shall terminate Defendants (1) Bonnie Werner; (2) Former Com missioner Harold W. Clarke; and (3) Commissioner Luis Spencer as parties to this action; The Clerk shall send the summonses, a copy of the Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the Plaintiff, who must thereafter serve the Defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Plaintiff may elect to have service made by the United States Marshal Service. If directed by the Plaintiff to do so, the United States Marshal shall serve the summonses, Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order upon each of the Defendants, in the manner directed by the Plaintiff, with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States Marshal Service. Notwithstanding Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 4.1, the Plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of this Order to complete service; and Plaintiff may not further amend the Complaint absent prior leave of Court. (PSSA, 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
RODOLFO CARR,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM COLON, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 11-11700-WGY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.
On September 26, 2011, prisoner Plaintiff Rodolfo Carr (“Carr”) filed a 26-page
handwritten Complaint pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named as Defendants
fifteen state prison officials, prison guards, and other prison staff.1 Attached to the Complaint
was a 107-page package of exhibits, including letters, grievance and appeal forms, and other
documents.
On October 24, 2011, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 9) finding
the Complaint to be convoluted, since it was set forth in a narrative form, listing a chronology of
the myriad of his adverse experiences with prison staff and other inmates. This Court found the
Complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and directed Carr to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with Rule 8,
providing sufficient notice of the “who, what, when where, and why” information outlining the

1

Defendants included: (1) William Colon; (2) Marlon Medero; (3) Kevin Fountaine; (4)
Lisa Castoldi; (5) Christopher Hyde; (6) Pamela M O'Dell; (7) Joshua Frates; (8) Guard Griffin;
(9) Superintendent Thomas Dickhaut; (10) Bonnie Werner; (11) Kristie Ladouceur; (12) Former
Commissioner Harold W. Clarke; (13) Commissioner Luis Spencer; (14) John Beland; and (15)
Paul Oxford.

claims against each Defendant separately. In order to assist Carr, this Court suggested that he
list separate counts as to each Defendant, identifying each cause of action and avoiding a
collective assertion of liability of the Defendants.
Carr filed several motions to extend the time for filing his Amended Complaint, which
were allowed by this Court. On February 24, 2012, Carr filed an Amended Complaint (Docket
No. 14) which consisted of 37 hand-written pages, and 43 exhibits in support, for a total of 139
pages. Carr’s Amended Complaint names new Defendants. The Defendants now named are: (1)
William Colon; (2) Marlon Medero; (3) Kevin Fountaine; (4) Lisa Castoldi; (5) Christopher
Hyde; (6) Pamela M O'Dell; (7) Joshua Frates; (8) Guard Griffin; (9) Superintendent Thomas
Dickhaut; (10) Guard Tatro; (11) Kristie Ladouceur; (12) Lt. Keezer; (13) Guard Beach;
(14) Lawrence Weiner; and (15) Dentist Oh. Omitted in the list of Defendants are Bonnie
Werner, Former Commissioner Harold W. Clarke, and Commissioner Luis Spencer. Carr alleges
that the Defendants have retaliated against him by using mental and physical techniques of
coercion, including threatening and hitting him, in order to intimidate and punish him and ensure
that he will not complain again through the grievance system or in the courts. He also reasserts
his claim that there is a lack of security and safety measures in the dining hall, and that this
subjects him to threats of violence and serious physical harm. Finally, he contends he is denied
appropriate medical care because he has been deprived of a set of dentures needed to chew his
food.
Although Carr attempts to remedy the pleading deficiencies in the original Complaint, he
again lists a chronology of adverse events (“the facts”), and then makes general allegations

2

against the Defendants separately. There are no separate counts and there is no identification of
the specific actions and dates upon which he liability is based against each Defendant. Thus, it is
difficult to discern precisely the actions or inactions of each Defendant that give rise to liability.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Amended Complaint is not pristine, this Court credits
Carr’s efforts to set forth his claims separately, and will permit this action to proceed at this time.
The Defendant(s) may file a Motion for a More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if necessary to file a response to the Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the Clerk will be directed to issue summonses as to each Defendant named
in the Amended Complaint, and to terminate those Defendants named in the original Complaint
but not the Amended Complaint.
Further, because Carr has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, this Court will
direct that the United States Marshal Service effect service as directed by Carr, and advance the
costs of service. Notwithstanding that Carr is proceeding pro se, he is not entitled to free copies
of the Amended Complaint from this Court; however, the Clerk shall provide one copy of the
Amended Complaint along with the summonses.
Finally, Carr may not file any further Amended Complaints without leave of Court upon
motion and good cause shown after the Defendants have filed a response(s) to the Amended
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
1.

The Clerk shall issue summonses with respect to: (1) William Colon; (2) Marlon Medero;
(3) Kevin Fountaine; (4) Lisa Castoldi; (5) Christopher Hyde; (6) Pamela M O'Dell; (7)
3

Joshua Frates; (8) Guard Griffin; (9) Superintendent Thomas Dickhaut; (10) Guard Tatro;
(11) Kristie Ladouceur; (12) Lt. Keezer; (13) Guard Beach; (14) Lawrence Weiner; and
(15) Dentist Oh;
2.

The Clerk shall terminate Defendants (1) Bonnie Werner; (2) Former Commissioner
Harold W. Clarke; and (3) Commissioner Luis Spencer as parties to this action;

3.

The Clerk shall send the summonses, a copy of the Amended Complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order to the Plaintiff, who must thereafter serve the Defendants in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Plaintiff may elect to have
service made by the United States Marshal Service. If directed by the Plaintiff to do so,
the United States Marshal shall serve the summonses, Amended Complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order upon each of the Defendants, in the manner directed by the
Plaintiff, with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States Marshal Service.
Notwithstanding Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 4.1, the Plaintiff shall have 120
days from the date of this Order to complete service; and

4.

Plaintiff may not further amend the Complaint absent prior leave of Court.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: February 29, 2012

4