Hullum et al v. Mici et al

Filing 71

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered finding as moot 49 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 52 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 53 Motion for TRO; granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion for Leave t o File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document.; granting 58 Motion to Appoint Counsel. See attached order. (PSSA, 5)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LANCE HULLUM,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
23-10082-PBS

CAROL MICI, DEAN GRAY,
DAVID SHAW, THOMAS TOCCI,
THEODORE BERIAU, DAVID LOMME,
DAVID AZIZ, GEARY R. WEAVER,
MICHAEL CHELLIS, JOSEPH KILLELEA,
Defendants.
ORDER
SARIS, D.J.
1.

NOVEMBER 15, 2023

Plaintiff Lance Hullum’s unopposed Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 58), is ALLOWED only to the
extent that the court refers the matter to the Court’s Pro Bono
Coordinator to attempt to secure counsel willing to represent
Hullum without compensation. Hullum is advised that the
allowance of her motion to appoint counsel does not mean that he
is guaranteed pro bono counsel. The Pro Bono Coordinator will
contact attorneys who have expressed interest in pro bono
representation and inform them that the court requests pro bono
counsel for Hullum.

If none of these attorneys agree to

represent Hullum, he will be required to continue to represent
himself.

The Court will either appoint counsel or notify the

parties that counsel has not been located by January 12, 2024
1

2.

Hullum’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 57) is

ALLOWED in Part and DENIED in Part, and Motion to Enlarge Time
(ECF No. 52) is DENIED as MOOT.

Hullum’s proposed

amended/supplemental Complaint is not a short and plain
statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

To be transparent, the

Court is most immediately concerned with the purported Eighth
Amendment endangerment/failure to protect claims.

Hullum’s

pleadings and proposed amended/supplemental complaint
essentially allege, among other things, that many prison
officials are making claims that Hullum is a snitch and a sex
offender in an attempt to incite inmates to act.

Hullum claims

that supervisory officials permit this alleged pervasive
harassment to occur.

Further, Hullum alleges that he is being

retaliated against for pursuing this matter.
The Court, of course, makes no findings as to these and the
other allegations in the pleadings –- they are mere allegations
-- but Hullum shall be permitted to file a final amended
complaint, a single document with all of his claims in one
document, that complies with the basic pleading requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so that the Court can
evaluate the claims.

The deadline to file amended complaint

shall be 60 days after appointment of counsel to permit adequate
investigation, or 30 days after notice that counsel has not been
located.

The amended complaint will be promptly screened by the
2

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

No

response shall be necessary by any defendant or proposed
defendant absent further order of the Court.

After screening,

the Court will establish a schedule for responsive pleadings to
be filed, including motions to dismiss.

Hullum is admonished to

keep his pleadings focused on his primary claims.

A complaint

is not a novel, and even the claims described here should not
exceed 30 pages.
3.

Hullum’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF

No. 53) is DENIED without prejudice.

Hullum’s motion is not

supported with a separate memorandum of reasons, see Local Rule
7.1(b)(1) (“A party filing a motion shall at the same time file
a memorandum of reasons, including citation of supporting
authorities, why the motion should be granted.

Affidavits and

other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the
motion is based shall be filed with the motion.”), and therefore
does not address the legal requirements for a temporary
restraining order.

Rather, Hullum incorporates by reference a

motion that does not address the issues, and the complaint.
Furthermore, Hullum is seeking a mandatory injunction for this
Court to actively interfere with the operation of the Department
of Corrections by ordering Hullum’s transfer to specific
facilities, and Hullum has not met the high burden for this
Court to entertain such extraordinary relief.
3

Indeed, the

Department of Correction is ostensibly in the best position to
determine how and where to best effectuate its duty to safely
incarcerate Hullum.

See McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002)

(“It is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is
at the core of prison administrators' expertise.”).

The Court

requests, but does not order, that defendants’ counsel inform
the appropriate officials at the Massachusetts Department of
Correction of Hullum’s allegations made in this action (and
presumes this has already been done in the course of this
litigation) and this order.

To the extent Hullum is transferred

to another institution, the Court also requests, but does not
order, that it inform the Court within seven (7) days after the
completion any such transfer or such reasonable time to
accommodate security concerns.

The Court expressly takes no

position as to whether Hullum ought be transferred, or any other
action taken, on this record, and at this time.
4.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 49)is DENIED as

MOOT, subject to refiling after an amended complaint is filed.

So Ordered.
_/s/ Patti B. Saris_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4