Stile v. Dubois et al

Filing 68

///ORDER granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Stile
v.

Civil No. 17-cv-406-JD
Opinion No. 2019 DNH 065

David Dubois, et al.
O R D E R
James Stile, who is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, brought suit against the Strafford County
Sheriff and deputies in the Sheriff’s office, Strafford County,
the Strafford County Administrator, the Strafford County
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) Superintendent and officers,
and the United States Marshals Service in the District of Maine
and individual marshals.

His claims arose from an incident that

occurred in September of 2014, while Stile was a pretrial
detainee held at the Strafford County Department of Corrections
awaiting trial in the District of Maine.

He alleges claims for

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
state law claims.
The SCDC, Bruce Pelkie, Robert Farrell, and Robert Hayden
move for summary judgment on the ground that Stile did not
exhaust the administrative remedies that were available to him.
Stile did not object to the defendants’ motion but filed his own

motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion.

The

SCDC defendants object to Stile’s motion.

Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party
“shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“[A] fact is material if it has the

potential of affecting the outcome of the case.”

Leite v.

Bergeron, 911 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

“A genuine issue of material fact only exists

if a reasonable factfindiner, examining the evidence and drawing
all reasonable inferences helpful to the party resisting summary
judgment, could resolve the dispute in that party’s favor.”
Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., 877 F.3d 58, 64-65 (1st Cir.
2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); Flood v. Bank of Am.
Corp., 780 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2015).
The same standard applies on cross motions for summary
judgment.

The court determines whether either moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wells Real Estate Inv.

Tr. II, Inc. v. Chardon/Hato Rey P’ship, S.E., 615 F.3d 45, 51
(1st Cir. 2010).

2

Background
Stile’s claims arise from the circumstances and events that
occurred on September 5, 2014, when he was taken from his cell
at the SCDC and transported to Maine for a hearing in his
criminal case.

At that time, Stile was a federal pretrial

detainee who was in the custody of the SCDC pursuant to an
agreement with the United States Marshals Service.

Stile

alleges that the officers involved in moving and transporting
him used excessive force in violation of his Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process.

Discussion
The SCDC defendants move for summary judgment on the
federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against them, asserting
that Stile failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through
grievance procedures at the jail with respect to the transport
incident in September of 2014.

Stile moves for summary judgment

on the ground that the defendants’ answers to interrogatories
show that grievance procedures were not available or show that a
material factual dispute exists as to whether they were
available.
A prisoner cannot bring claims under § 1983 to challenge
the conditions of his confinement unless he has exhausted
available administrative remedies.
3

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

To

satisfy that requirement, a plaintiff must properly use all of
the steps provided.

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).

A

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an
affirmative defense.

A.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).

SCDC Grievance Procedure
The SCDC defendants filed a copy of the Operational

Guideline, 3.6.04, Inmate Grievance Procedure, that was in
effect from 2013 to 2015 while Stile was a detainee at the SCDC.
See Aff. Gwen Weisgarber, Captain, SCDC, Doc. 36-2; Doc. 36-3.
They also filed a copy of the Inmate Handbook that was in effect
at that time.

Stile acknowledges that the SCDC had a three-part

grievance procedure while he was detained there.
The grievance procedure is mandatory for an inmate to
receive a remedy.
Inmate Handbook.

The procedure is provided to inmates in the
Doc. 36-4.

An inmate may make a verbal

informal complaint to a staff member within seven days of
discovering a grievable issue.

Doc. 36-4, at 10.

For any

condition or issue that requires action or a remedy, an inmate
must file a formal written grievance on a grievance form within
fourteen days of the issue or incident.

Id. at 11.

The inmate

will be provided an inmate grievance form by a staff member.
The inmate gives the completed grievance form to the Unit
Officer, and the inmate will be provided with a copy of the
4

grievance, if requested.

The Unit Supervisor will resolve the

grievance if possible, but otherwise the duty shift supervisor
will address the grievance.

The shift supervisor will address

the grievance within five business days, return the original to
the inmate, and place a copy in the inmate’s Booking Folder.
Doc. 36-4, at 11.
If the inmate is not satisfied with the shift supervisor’s
response, he must submit the grievance to the “LieutenantOperations and Security” or his designee within five business
days.

Id.

The Lieutenant will respond in writing within five

business days, and a copy will be placed in the Booking Folder.
Id.
At the third step, if the inmate is still not satisfied
with the response, within five business days he must request a
further administrative remedy.

Id. at 12.

A Grievance

Committee would then be convened, with members designated by the
Superintendent “on an as-needed basis.”
appear before the Committee.

Id.

An inmate may

The Committee’s decision will be

in writing and the inmate will sign the decision to show that he
was notified of it.
Booking Folder.

A copy will be filed in the inmate’s

Id.

5

B.

Grievance of the September 5, 2014, Incident

Stile acknowledges in his motion for summary judgment that
“there is a grievance procedure [at SCDC] and that he did not
use it fully” to file a grievance pertaining to the September 5,
2014, incident.

Doc. 52, at 5.

The grievance logs and copies

of grievances that Stile and the defendants submit show that
Stile filed many grievances during the relevant period but none
that complained about the SCDC defendants’ actions during the
September 5, 2014, incident.
On September 5, 2014, Stile filed a grievance at 8:00 am
stating that officers brought him to booking without giving him
medication and without providing him with denture adhesive.

On

September 8, the reply was that the officers “reported an
altercation in booking & then transport prior to being
medicated.”
bottom:

Doc. 36-5, Ex. C, at 118.

Stile wrote at the

“Lie—Review Video.”1

Stile filed several grievances during the late evening of
September 5, which show that he was in “medical”.

At 11:20 pm,

Stile filed a grievance about the food he was given to take with
him for the court appearance and about his lack of dentures
during the court appearance.

Id. at 119.

The response states

While that grievance addresses some events that occurred
when Stile was removed from his cell for transport to Maine, it
does not raise the issues that he alleges in his claims against
the SCDC defendants in Claims 1 and 6.
1

6

that Stile refused to meet with the officer about his grievance
and notes that he filed thirteen grievances between September 4
and September 7, 2014.
Stile filed another grievance at 11:31 pm that he was not
given his prescribed medication at 4:30 pm when he returned to
the jail from court.

Id. at 120.

The response on September 8

was that the officer discussed the matter with the medication
staff.

Also on September 5 at 11:31 pm, Stile requested that he

have access to Catholic services on Saturday morning, and access
was allowed.

At 11:50 pm, Stile complained about the lights

being on, which was preventing him from sleeping.

Id. at 122.

The next day, September 6, Stile filed a grievance about
not being able to participate in his defense for his criminal
case because of restrictions imposed on him.

Id. at 123.

The

response says that he was being provided with access to the law
library and that he had been provided with a pen.

He filed

another grievance the same day about Officer Farrell and
requesting more law library time to research issues for his
criminal trial.

The complaint about Farrell was forwarded to a

supervisor and the law library issue was answered the same day,
stating that Stile “was in fact given opportunity when it became
available.”

Id. at 124.

On Sunday, September 7, Stile complained about the number
and quality of his pillows.

He also complained about the
7

orthopedic specialist who apparently examined Stile and provided
an opinion that Stile disputed.

Id. at 125-28.

Later on September 7, Stile filed a grievance that
referenced the transport from SCDC to court.
demanded a medical test that is redacted.

Stile first

He also asked the

SCDC to “Call USMS [United States Marshals Service] and insist
that I am transported to Court not as if I am a piece of
Samsonite Luggage but as a human being who is suffering from an
[redacted] not yet diagnosed and that improper transport and
assault like what ocurred [sic] here Sept. 5, 2014 could cause
me to become paralyzed.”

2

Id. at 129.

That grievance was

forwarded to “Medical (Tracy)” on the same day.

Id.

At 12:02 pm on September 7, Stile stated that he did not
want to see “your P.A.” because Stile disagreed with his opinion
and believed the P.A. was incompetent.

At 12:05 pm, Stile asked

that the medical unit prioritize the use of the law computer for
those, such as Stile, who had pro se cases.

On September 8,

Stile complained that Tracy Warren in the medical department
asked him about his wounds, which Stile interpreted to mean that
there was no report of his injuries from September 5, 2014.

As stated, the grievance addressed only the conditions
during transport, which according to Stile’s complaint was done
by deputies of the Strafford County Sheriff’s Office. Claim 2.
2

8

Warren responded that his wounds were properly documented and
that she was trying to talk with Stile about them.

Id. at 132.

Stile filed a grievance on September 9 that responded to
the answer he received to a prior grievance about medical sick
call.

He stated that Warren lied in her response to him and was

incapable of reading the doctor’s report.
same day was “addended plan being sent.”

Warren’s response the
Id. at 133.

Stile

then filed a grievance that had to do with his reports about his
smoking, and Warren responded, “What are you grieving here?”
Id. at 134.

Stile filed fourteen more grievances on September 9

that appear to challenge his medical treatment and argue with
Warren’s responses.

He continued to file grievances about

medical care on September 10.
On September 11, Stile filed a grievance about his glasses,
which were provided to him.

He then filed many more grievances

about his medical care and his access to medications.

The

grievances about medical care continue on September 12, along
with a grievance about holes in his socks.

None of the many

grievances filed thereafter and through September 28, 2014,
addressed the September 5, 2014, incident.
The references to the September 5 incident in the
grievances filed on September 5 and 7 did not exhaust the
administrative procedure.

As Stile acknowledges, he did not

9

appeal those grievances.3

Therefore, Stile did not exhaust his

administrative remedies for the § 1983 claims against the SCDC
defendants that arose from the September 5, 2014, incident.

C.

Available Remedies
Stile contends that his failure to exhaust the SCDC

administrative procedures, with respect to the September 5
incident, was not his fault.

Instead, he argues, the lack of

exhaustion was “through thwarting of the process by the
Defendants.”

1.

Doc. 52, at 5.

Standard

An inmate is required to exhaust available remedies, and
available remedies means the remedies that are “capable of use
for the accomplishment of a purpose” and remedies that are
“accessible or may be obtained.”

Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct.

1850, 1858 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The

Supreme Court has identified “three kinds of circumstances in
which an administrative remedy, although officially on the
books, is not capable of use to obtain relief.”

Id. at 1859.

The first circumstance occurs when “an administrative
procedure . . . operates as a simple dead end—with officers

As is noted above, the cited grievances do not address the
claims brought here.
3

10

unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to
aggrieved inmates.”

Id.

For example, the first circumstance

would exist when “a prison handbook directs inmates to submit
their grievances to a particular administrative office—but in
practice that office disclaims the capacity to consider those
petitions.”

Id.

Another example would be “if administrative

officials have apparent authority, but decline ever to exercise
it.”

Id.
The second circumstance occurs when “an administrative

scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking,
incapable of use.”

Id.

An administrative procedure is opaque

if “no ordinary prisoner can discern or navigate” the process.
Id.

The third circumstance occurs “when prison administrators

thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process
through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.”

Id.

at 1860.

2.

Application

The exhibits submitted by Stile and the SCDC defendants
show that Stile filed more than two hundred grievances.

The

SCDC defendants represent, and Stile does not dispute, that he
did not file appeals of any of his grievances.

Stile contends

that the SCDC grievance procedure was unavailable to him because
the SCDC had no standing Grievance Committee.
11

He cites no

situation where he appealed a grievance and was denied a hearing
before a Grievance Committee.
In addition, Stile accuses the SCDC of being sloppy in
administering the grievance procedures and needing training.

He

states that for purposes of this case the SCDC defendants
provided him with 235 grievances that he filed while he was held
at SCDC and that he reviewed 168 of those grievances.

He

contends that 127 of his grievances were “‘incorrect’ because of
staff error.”

Doc. 52 at 7.

He provides no explanation or

evidence about what error occurred.
Stile also states that the grievances show that he asked
for copies of his grievances that were not provided.

The single

cited grievance, however, was answered: “C/O Garcia states he
was never given any physical grievances just verbal.”
52-2, at 1.

Doc.

He also does not explain what prejudice he

experienced due to a lack of copies.

Therefore, Stile has not

shown that the SCDC officers thwarted his efforts to file
grievances by failing to provide copies.
He cites a grievance that he filed in January of 2015 about
other grievances not being answered.
referred to Lieutenant Brackett.

That grievance was

The documents submitted show

that he received answers to his many grievances.

His request in

January of 2015 that officers have remedial training in handling

12

grievances was noted as not being a grievance, and Stile was
told to file a request.
Stile’s unsupported criticisms of the SCDC grievance
procedures do not show that administrative remedies were
unavailable to him.

D.

Result
Stile did not properly exhaust the § 1983 claims he alleges

against the SCDC defendants.
dismissed.

As a result, those claims must be

The § 1983 claims against the SCDC defendants, with

reference to the claims listed in the court’s order issued on
February 5, 2019, document no. 54, are Claims 1(a), 6(a), and
6(b).

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the SCDC defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (document no. 36) is granted.

Stile’s motion

for summary judgment (document no. 52) is denied.
The claims that remain in this case are the following:
1. SCDC corrections officers Farrell and Hayden used
excessive force against Stile, in that Farrell and Hayden
shackled and handcuffed Stile, and then dragged him to the
SCDC garage sallyport on September 5, 2014:
b. rendering Farrell and Hayden liable to Stile for
the intentional torts of assault and battery, under state
law; and

13

c. rendering Strafford County vicariously liable to
Stile under state law for the SCDC officers’ tortious
conduct.
2. Defendants SCSO Deputies Clement and Dossett used
excessive force against Stile, in that they operated the
van on September 5, 2014 in a manner intending to make
Stile (while handcuffed and shackled) bounce against the
van walls, causing Stile to suffer pain and physical
injuries:
a. rendering Clement and Dossett liable to Stile for
violating Stile’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
b. rendering Clement and Dossett liable to Stile for
(i) negligence; or (ii) the intentional torts of assault
and battery, under state law; and
c. rendering Strafford County vicariously liable to
Stile under state law for the SCSO deputies’ tortious
conduct.
6. SCDC Superintendent Pelkie (i.) authorized Farrell and
Hayden to shackle, handcuff, and then drag Stile to the
SCDC sallyport on September 5, 2014, and (ii.) failed to
train Farrell and Hayden relating to the use of shackles
and handcuffs:
c. rendering Pelkie liable to Stile for negligence,
under state law; and
d. rendering Strafford County vicariously liable to
Stile under state law for Pelkie’s tortious conduct.
7. Strafford County Sheriff David Dubois (i.) maintained a
fleet of unsafe transport vans; and (ii.) failed to train
defendants Clement and Dossett relating to the safe
transport of detainees in the SCDC vans:
a. rendering Dubois liable to Stile for violating
Stile’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983;
b. rendering Strafford County liable to Stile for
violating Stile’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights,
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
c. rendering Dubois liable to Stile for negligence
under state law; and
d. rendering Strafford County vicariously liable to
Stile under state law for Dubois’s tortious conduct.

14

9. Strafford County and the United States Marshals Service
for the District of Maine entered an agreement to house
federal pretrial detainees at the Strafford County
Department of Corrections and to provide transportation to
detainees, including Stile, for medical and court
appointments. Stile was an intended third-party
beneficiary of that agreement. Strafford County and the
Marshals Service breached the agreement when Stile was
transported by officers who were not trained or not
properly trained in a cargo van that lacked appropriate
safety protections and minimum comforts and did not comply
with the requirements of state and federal law, which
caused Stile to be injured.
10. United States Marshals Service officers, Alex Patnode,
Dean Knightly, and Randy Ossinger, signed the agreement
with Strafford County for housing and transporting federal
pretrial detainees and were grossly negligent in failing to
inspect and ensure that the transportation provided by
Strafford County was safe and complied with the agreement.
Their gross negligence resulted in Stile being injured
while being transported by officers or employees of the
Strafford County Department of Corrections, rendering the
United States liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2674.
SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 8, 2019
cc:

James Stile, pro se
Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
Michael T. McCormack, Esq.

15