Salameh v. Spencer et al

Filing 34

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 15 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 17 Motion to waive local rule; denying 18 Motion to Dismiss; denying 20 Motion to Strike ; denying 21 Motion for reprimand; denyi ng 22 Motion for more definite statement; granting 25 Motion for summons; granting 26 Motion to Amend; finding as moot 27 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 30 Motion to Withdraw; and directing the preparation and service of summons on the unserved defendants (including, if necessary Ms. Dodge) encompassed by the amended complaint. And further, after noting that the plaintiffs address appears to have changed from that on record in this case and the address listed in No. 12-10165 reflects a more recent change of address form, directing that this new address be applied in this case as well. (Woodlock, Douglas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

NADEEM SALAMEH

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LUIS SPENCER, COMMISSIONER,
)
THOMAS DICKAUT, SUPERINTENDENT, )
ANTHONY MENDOSA, DEPUTY
)
SUPERINTENDENT, CHRISTOPHER
)
HYDE PROPERTY OFFICER,
)
MARLENE DODGE, HEALTH SERVICE
)
ADMINISTRATOR
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
11-11950-DPW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 29, 2012

The plaintiff brought this action claiming the defendants
caused him damage by their deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs while a prisoner in the control of the
Massachusetts Department of Correction incarcerated at the Souza
Baranowski Correctional Center.
The plaintiff is pursuing another action against certain of
the defendants in this case before Judge Stearns in a case styled
Salameh v. Duval, Civil Action No. 12-10165-RGS.

When plaintiff

filed a motion (#30) to withdraw this case to pursue the claims
here in No. 12-10165, Judge Stearns initially granted leave to
amend the complaint in that matter but upon reconsideration urged
by the defendants vacated that order.

Meanwhile defendants

opposed the motion to withdraw this case unless it were by
dismissal with prejudice, which the plaintiff plainly did not
intend.

He has in fact pending in this case a motion to amend

his complaint (#26) and for the issuance of summonses (#25) to
add additional defendants.
While summons have been returned as to all defendants named
in the original complaint, one defendant, who was apparently
misidentified as “Marlene” as opposed to “Maureen” Dodge, is
contesting the efficacy of the service made upon her.
In order to put this case back on track, I will allow
plaintiff’s motion to amend and deny Ms. Dodge’s motion to
dismiss.

The problems of making service through the Marshals

Service for pro se prisoner litigants are daunting and I do not
intend to let the case be derailed because a defendant seeks to
stand on ceremony regarding service of process for a defendant
plainly on notice about the case.

If the defendant Dodge’s

counsel wish to continue their opposition to the prosecution of
this case through resort to claims of ineffectiveness in service,
it will be necessary to give plaintiff additional time to perfect
service and I will do so.

In the interim, I will deny the motion

of counsel for the defendant Dodge to waive the obligation under
Local Rule 7.1(A)(2) to consult with plaintiff.
Accordingly, I will act on the several related motions of
the parties and direct the preparation and service of summons on

-2-

the unserved defendants (including, if necessary Ms. Dodge)
encompassed by the amended complaint.

I note that the

plaintiff’s address appears to have changed from that on record
in this case and the address listed in No. 12-10165 reflects a
more recent change of address form and that this new address
should be applied in this case as well.

/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

-3-