Latimore v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 398

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered denying 363 Motion for Sanctions; denying without prejudice 364 Motion ; denying 372 Motion for Sanctions; denying 374 Motion for Order; denying 375 Motion ; denying without prejudice 376 Motion ; granting 377 Motion ; denying 386 Motion ; denying 395 Motion (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_________________________________________
)
JASON LATIMORE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN HOULE, WILLIAM GROSSI,
)
and VINCENT POON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

Civil Action No.
14-13481-FDS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
SAYLOR, J.
This action arises out of an alleged attack on a prisoner by a correctional officer at the
Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk (“MCI-Norfolk”). There are currently 13
outstanding motions filed by plaintiff Jason Latimore:
1.

Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 363)

2.

Motion to Inform the Court of Additional Assaults (Docket No. 364)

3.

Motion for Ruling on Medical Records (Docket No. 365)

4.

Motion for Ruling on Medical Records (Docket No. 370)

5.

Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 372)

6.

Motion for a Court Order to Allow Medical Expert to Examine Plaintiff (Docket
No. 374)

7.

Motion for “Assault by DOC Correctional Staff” (Docket No. 375)

8.

Motion for “Illegal Stealing of all Outgoing Legal Mail” (Docket No. 376)

9.

Motion for Copy of Docket Sheet (Docket No. 377)

10.

Motion for “Failure to Administrate the Docket Filings” (Docket No. 386)

11.

Motion for Expedited Determination of Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 394)

12.

Motion to Alter Remedy (Docket No. 395)

13.

Motion for Expedited Determination of Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 396)

Several motions (Docket Nos. 363, 372, 394, 396) concern plaintiff’s request that
defendants provide copies of video footage of the alleged assault. However, defendants have
represented multiple times that no video recording of this incident exists, and plaintiff has
provided no evidence such a recording ever existed. Defendants cannot be sanctioned for failing
to produce a non-existent recording. Therefore, the motions for sanctions (Docket Nos. 363,
372) are DENIED. To the extent that this Court has ruled on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, the
motions for expedited determination (Docket Nos. 394, 396) are GRANTED.
In Docket No. 364, plaintiff appears to report additional assaults by correctional staff in
July, August, and September 2017. However, plaintiff does not request any relief beyond stating
that he “may need to request continuances or stays of the proceedings.” Accordingly, this
motion is DENIED without prejudice.
In Docket No. 375, plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of another assault by
correctional staff in December 2017 that left his right thumb broken. In this motion, plaintiff
states that he will seek a stay of this litigation until his thumb heals. Nevertheless, plaintiff has
not shown that a stay is warranted; as evidenced by his many motion filings, he continues to
prosecute this case vigorously. Accordingly, the motion to stay is DENIED.
In two motions (Docket Nos. 365, 370), plaintiff suggests that defense attorney Katherine
Briggs violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to provide a release

2

form for plaintiff to obtain a “certified copy of [his] Boston Medical Center records.” Because
defendants have not yet responded to these motions, they will be left pending.
In a motion dated December 26, 2017 (Docket No. 374), plaintiff requests that he be
permitted to have a medical expert and forensic psychologist examine him. The motion was
docketed on January 8, 2018. However, the Court entered its first scheduling order on May 25,
2016. That order set a deadline of August 31, 2016, for the parties to indicate whether they
intended to call experts. Over the next 18 months, the Court extended discovery deadlines
multiple times, most recently on May 22, 2017. On that date, the Court set the deadline for
plaintiff to complete any expert disclosures at August 28, 2017. Approximately four months
elapsed before plaintiff indicated he intended to call an expert. Because plaintiff has not shown
good cause why he should be permitted to conduct expert discovery after discovery has closed,
the motion is DENIED.
In Docket No. 376, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion for Illegal Stealing of All
Outgoing Legal Mail Since December 11, 2017.” In the motion, he alleges that correctional staff
have been stealing his legal correspondence and requests that the Court “backdate” all his filings.
He also requests that defendants provide all video footage of the outgoing mailbox at Old Colony
Correctional Center on certain dates, along with various audio recordings. It is unclear, among
other things, that this Court can provide any relief in this situation. Accordingly, the motion is
DENIED without prejudice.
Two motions concern to the docket sheet. In Docket No. 377, plaintiff requests a copy of
the docket sheet. That motion is GRANTED, and the clerk is directed to mail a copy of the
docket sheet to plaintiff. In Docket No. 386, plaintiff claims that the “administrative procedures
of the clerk’s office and court have irreparably prejudiced the proceedings.” He alleges that his

3

motions have been omitted from the docket. This appears to be incorrect, and that motion is
DENIED.
Finally, in Docket No. 395, plaintiff requests that he be permitted to amend the complaint
to seek special damages. For the reasons stated in the Court’s December 7, 2017 memorandum
and order, this motion is untimely and is DENIED.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: March 14, 2018

4