Mejia v. Smith et al
Filing
29
ORDER granting Defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII. So Ordered by Judge Joseph DiClerico (New Hampshire, sitting by designation) on 12/17/2012. (Duhamel, John)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Edward Mejia
v.
Civil No. 12-cv-449-JD
William E. Smith, et al.
0 R D E R
Edward Mejia, who is also known as Jose Luis Maldonado,
brought a civil rights action against a federal judge, the warden
and officers at the Wyatt Detention Center, and unnamed United
States Marshals, arising from events that occurred in February of
2011 during his trial on drug charges.
The named Wyatt Detention
Center defendants, Warden Bryan Murphy, Captain Samuels, Sargent
Santos, Sargent Cloud, and Officer Pagent ("defendants"), move to
dismiss the claims against them. 1
Mejia did not file a response
to the motion.
Background
Mejia does not provide background allegations for his claims
in the complaint, which arose from events during his criminal
1
Mejia also brings a claim against a Wyatt Detention Center
employee identified only as "Unknown Rank of Major" in Count II.
The defendants' motion to dismiss is deemed to include the claim
against that unknown defendant.
trial in United States v. Maldonado, 09-cr-71-S (D.R.I. 2009).
The criminal case was brought against Mejia under his other name,
Jose Luis Maldonado.
In that case, Mejia was charged in six counts with drug
trafficking and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime.
Smith.
The case was assigned to Judge William E.
Jury selection for the trial was held on February 8,
2011, and the trial began on February 22, 2011.
On the first day of trial, Judge Smith was notified by the
Marshal Service that Mejia refused to leave his cell at the Wyatt
Detention Facility.
Judge Smith asked defense counsel to go to
Wyatt to explain to Mejia that the trial would proceed.
Defense
counsel and a United States Marshal discussed the matter with the
court and the prosecutors by telephone from Wyatt.
Counsel and
the marshal explained that Mejia was extremely agitated and that
he refused to speak with counsel.
The marshal also said that
Mejia refused to get dressed or leave his cell that morning when
the marshal attempted to transport him to the court for trial.
Counsel represented to the court that Mejia was mentally
competent to stand trial.
The deputy chief of the Marshal Service arranged for a
telephone connection at Wyatt so that Mejia could participate in
the hearing with the court.
Mejia refused to cooperate with that
2
arrangement.
Mejia was brought into the conference room for the
telephone conference, against his will, and instructed counsel
not to speak on his behalf.
Judge Smith explained that the trial was going to proceed
despite Mejia's refusal to come to the courthouse and that the
trial would begin that afternoon.
Judge Smith also told Mejia
that he was represented by counsel.
Mejia objected to his
current counsel and said that he had been illegally taped by the
prosecutor.
Judge Smith told Mejia that the recording would not
be used at trial and that counsel would continue to represent
him.
Mejia responded that he did not like counsel and did not
want them to represent him.
Judge Smith stated that Mejia's
choice was to proceed with counsel or to represent himself but
that the trial would begin that afternoon.
Judge Smith
instructed that if Mejia refused to attend trial, one of his
lawyers was to come to the courthouse and the other was to stay
with Mejia at Wyatt.
The judge and the marshals discussed the
means of transporting Mejia to the courthouse or providing a
remote access to the trial at Wyatt.
The marshal's opinion was
that Mejia would not willingly do either.
When proceedings resumed that afternoon, the remote access
was working at Wyatt but Mejia refused to be present.
3
The
marshal reported that Mejia was undressed in his cell, wrapped in
a blanket.
The trial was recessed for the day.
On the second day of trial, Mejia refused to participate,
and by the middle of the afternoon, Judge Smith let the jury go
home.
After the jury left, the judge summarized the events of
that morning on the record.
Mejia had declared that he would not
come to court and was found in his cell that morning covered in
feces and urine.
He also claimed that the lawyer that he wanted
to represent him had come to Wyatt the night before and told him
not to go to court.
The named lawyer denied that had occurred.
The chief deputy then described the marshals' attempt to get
Mejia to the courthouse.
After Mejia was cleaned up and
transported to the "sallyport" of the courthouse, he refused to
get out of the vehicle.
The deputy marshals attempted to remove
him, and he resisted by kicking one of the deputies.
In the
deputies' efforts to restrain Mejia and remove him from the
vehicle, Mejia bumped his head.
Mejia was taken to the hospital,
where an examination showed that he had a broken nose.
Although
Mejia was verbally abusive to the hospital staff and the deputy
marshals, he did not physically resist.
After being treated at
the hospital,· Mejia was returned to Wyatt.
Plans were made for
transporting Mejia to the courthouse the next day and for
contingencies if he resisted.
4
On the third day of trial, February 24, Mejia was
transported to the court.
The lawyers representing him informed
the court that Mejia wanted them to withdraw.
After the lawyers
addressed the court, Mejia himself explained why he lacked
confidence in counsel.
Another lawyer, who Mejia wanted to have
represent him, also spoke.
Judge Smith ruled that the defense
lawyers could not withdraw, noting that the stated issues had
been resolved by court decisions, that Mejia was being
represented by the fourth group of defense counsel, that the
lawyers were exceedingly capable, and that any change in
representation would delay the trial when the case was more than
two years old and the trial had already begun.
Judge Smith asked
Mejia if he wanted the two lawyers to continue to represent him
or if he wanted to proceed by representing himself with the two·
lawyers as standby counsel.
Mejia, speaking for himself, informed the court of his
mental health issues and treatment.
Judge Smith responded that
the question of his competence to stand trial had been thoroughly
considered and that the court had determined that Mejia was
competent.
Mejia persisted, arguing that he wanted to have an
evaluation and that he had been diagnosed with serious mental
illness.
Judge Smith then reminded Mejia that the decision he
had to make was how to proceed in the trial.
5
In response, Mejia said that he did not feel competent for
the trial.
He continued,
uso I really don't think I'm going to
take part in anything that's going on here so I prefer to be
taken away.
I don't want to be here."
Judge Smith asked Mejia
if he wanted to be taken away, and he responded that he did not
want to be there because it was too much for him.
The judge then
explained that Mejia was not going to stop the trial and that it
was in Mejia's best interest to let his lawyers represent him.
Mejia repeated that he really did have problems.
Judge Smith asked Mejia if he would behave in front of the
jury, and Mejia responded that he could not guarantee that he
would.
One of Mejia's lawyers stated that it was in the court's
discretion whether to remove Mejia from the courtroom, based on
his behavior over the past two days and his statement that he
might not be able to behave in the courtroom.
The other defense
lawyer said that it would be better to have Mejia present.
Judge Smith decided that the trial would go forward with
Mejia in the courtroom with defense counsel and stated that Mejia
was capable of behaving appropriately.
When Mejia replied that a
qualified doctor should decide whether he could proceed with
trial, the judge told him that the issues had been addressed,
that Mejia had been found competent, and that Mejia would have to
be quiet and speak only through counsel.
6
Despite Mejia's
protests that he needed a mental evaluation, the trial resumed,
and the jury was brought into the courtroom.
to completion on February 25.
The trial continued
The jury found Mejia guilty on all
counts.
In his complaint, Mejia alleges that he was placed on
suicide watch on a doctor's orders because of a mental condition.
He also alleges that he was "under a Psychiatrist or Psychologist
care for treatment."
He states:
"United States District Judge,
Defendant William E. Smith, over a doctors care and order of
commitment to hospital 24 hour suicide watch."
He further
states: "District Court Judge William E. Smith ordered the Wyatt
Detention Center without the treating Physicians permission or
signature order, to take the Plaintiff out of suicide watch and
to bring him to the Courthouse [sic]."
Standard of Review
The analysis of a motion to dismiss proceeds through three
steps.
Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50,
55 (1st Cir. 2012)
(citing Ocasio-Hernandez v. Foruno-Burset, 640
F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)).
First, the court must ignore any
allegations in the complaint "that simply offer legal labels and
co~6lusions or merely rehash cause-of-ac~ion elements."
669 F.3d at 55.
Schatz,
Second, the properly pleaded facts must be taken
7
as true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the
plaintiff.
Id.
Third, the court considers the appropriate
allegations and inferences and determines whether "they plausibly
narrate a claim for relief."
Id.
Discussion
Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII are alleged against the
Wyatt defendants. 2
In Counts II, III, IV, and V against the
Major, the Warden, and Captain Samuels, Mejia alleges that each
defendant had knowledge of and acquiesced in removing him from
suicide watch without a doctor's permission, that the defendant
knew he was placed on suicide watch because of "instability of
the mind," that the defendant violated protocol and policy for
suicide watch inmates, and that because of those actions or
omissions Mejia was "beaten, brutalized with excessive force
causing trama [sic] and injuries on February 23rd, 2011."
Counts
VI and VII against Officer Cloud and Officer Pagent are similar
but are worded slightly differently.
Mejia contends that the
defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free of
cruel and unusual punishment.
The defendants move to dismiss the
2
Count I is alleged against Judge Smith, and Counts VIII
through XI are alleged against "unknown" marshals.
8
claims against them on the grounds that Mejia has not stated a
claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On February 23, 2011, Mejia was on trial for drug of£enses
and therefore had not yet been convicted of those offenses.
If
he were being held at the Wyatt Detention Center as a detainee,
the Fourteenth Amendment would apply, while the Eighth Amendment
would apply if he were being held as a convicted prisoner.
Leavitt v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 497 n.21 (1st
Cir. 2011).
Because the standard is the same under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments for purposes of Mejia's claims, his
status need not be resolved to decide the motion.
Id.
Civil rights violations by state employees are actionable
under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983.
Rodriguez-Garcia v. Miranda-Marin, 610
F.3d 756, 765 n.9 (1st Cir. 2010).
To state a claim of an Eighth
Amendment violation, the plaintiff must allege facts to show that
the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk
of harm to the plaintiff.
(1st Cir. 2011).
Ramos v. Patnaude, 640 F.3d 485, 490
"[T]hat is, that [the defendant] actually
understood that such a substantial risk existed and was actually
indifferent to it in failing to take appropriate mitigating
action."
Id.
Mejia alleges that each of the
def~ndants
knew or should
have known that he had been placed on suicide watch and that
9
removing him from suicide watch without a doctor's permission
violated the policy and protocol of Wyatt.
He then alleges:
"This caused the Plaintiff to be beaten, brutilized [sic] with
excessive force causing trama [sic] and injuries on February
23rd, 2011."
As the defendants contend, Mejia's allegations show only
that the defendants allowed him to be transported to the court
for his trial.
If, as alleged, the defendants knew that Mejia
had been placed on a suicide watch, that knowledge might support
an inference that the defendants knew there was a risk that Mejia
would hurt himself.
Mejia, however, did not hurt himself.
Instead, Mejia was injured while he was resisting the deputy
marshals' efforts to get him out of the transport vehicle at the
courthouse.
Mejia's allegations do not show or even suggest that
the defendants had any knowledge of the circumstances that lead
to Mejia's injuries.
Further, the allegations do not support any
connection between a suicide watch and Mejia's injuries.
Therefore, Mejia has not stated claims of Eighth Amendment
violations against the defendants.
10
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss
Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII (document no. 28) is granted.
SO ORDERED.
~Q:Oi~IA>.~·
~ A. DiClerico, J~
United States District Judge
(Sitting by designation.)
December 17, 2012
cc:
Edward Mejia, pro se
Jeffrey K. Techentin, Esquire
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?