Paiva v. Wall, et al
Filing
107
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 90 Motion for Leave to File; denying 92 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting 96 Report and Recommendations; and denying Plaintiff's 70 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Text Order, 71 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Text Order, and 72 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Text Order. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/4/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
RICHARD LEE PAIVA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 15-116 S
)
ASHBEL T. WALL, JAMES WEEDEN,
)
and LYNDA AUL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Magistrate
Recommendation
Judge
(“R&R”)
Lincoln
on
D.
Almond
September
1,
filed
2016
a
Report
(ECF
No.
and
96)
recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55).
Plaintiff has filed an Objection
to that R&R. (ECF No. 99.1) After consideration of the R&R and
Plaintiff’s Objection, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and GRANTS Defendants’ Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment.
In addition to Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R, the Court
has
before
it
the
following
outstanding
matters
related
to
Plaintiff’s claim:
Defendants have filed a Response (ECF No. 104) to
Plaintiff’s Objection, and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (ECF No.
106) to Defendants’ Response.
1
Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge Almond’s May
10, 2016 Text Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Defer Ruling on Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment Until Discovery is Taken (ECF No. 70);
Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge Almond’s May
10, 2016 Text Order Denying his Motion to Stay (ECF
No. 71);
Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge Almond’s May
10, 2016 Text Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Objection to Text Order (ECF No. 72);
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Replies or
Otherwise Respond to Defendants Filings of Document
Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 (ECF No. 90);
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
92).
These Appeals and Motions are addressed below and are DENIED.
I.
Factual Background
The R&R fully lays out the relevant facts and procedural
background of the case. In brief, Plaintiff is an inmate at the
Maximum
Security
Institution
Facility
(“ACI”).
(R&R
within
3,
ECF
the
No.
Adult
96.)
Correctional
The
ACI
denied
Plaintiff access to a specific issue of a mail-order publication
entitled “Inmate Shopper for Affluent Inmates.” (Id. at 4.) The
issue was reviewed by ACI personnel and found to be in violation
of the Inmate Mail Policy. (Id.) That Policy prohibits mail that
is “detrimental to the security, good order or discipline of the
facility,
and/or
if
the
effect
2
of
which
might
hinder
rehabilitation of an inmate, facilitate criminal activity, or
contribute to a hostile work environment.” (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff
alleges
that
the
ACI’s
decision
violated
Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
and brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, ECF
No.
1.)
Plaintiff
originally
submitted
a
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 44), but later withdrew that Motion. (R&R 1,
ECF No. 96.) Defendants submitted a Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 55), and Magistrate Judge Almond recommends
that the Cross-Motion be granted.
II.
Magistrate Judge Almond’s Report and Recommendation
and Plaintiff’s Objection
Plaintiff
specific
issue
argues
of
that the ACI’s
the
“Inmate
decision to deny him
Shopper
for
Affluent
a
Inmates”
violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. With regards to
Plaintiff’s
First
Amendment
correctly
explained
prisoners
possess
that
are
claim,
the
more
Magistrate
“constitutional
limited
in
Judge
Almond
rights
scope
than
that
the
constitutional rights held by individuals in society at large.
In the First Amendment context, for instance, some rights are
simply inconsistent with the status of a prisoner or with the
legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.”
(R&R 6, ECF No. 96 (quoting Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229
(2001) (internal quotations omitted).) Moreover, “[b]ecause the
3
problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and
because courts are particularly ill equipped to deal with these
problems . . . the Supreme Court generally has deferred to the
judgments
of
prison
officials
in
upholding
these
regulations
against constitutional challenge.” (Id. at 6-7 (quoting Almeida
v. Wall, No. C.A. 08-184S, 2008 WL 5377924, at *8 (D.R.I. Dec.
23, 2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted).) In light
of
this
precedential
backdrop,
Magistrate
Judge
Almond
found
that the ACI’s “justifications for the limitations placed on
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are reasonable.” (Id. at 7.)
Magistrate Judge Almond also determined that “Plaintiff’s
Due Process claim fairs no better.” (Id. at 8.) As Magistrate
Judge
Almond
explained,
the
ACI
must
comply
with
certain
“minimum procedural safeguards” when denying a prisoner access
to a particular piece of mail. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Almond
described the necessary safeguards, discussed in Procunier v.
Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 418 (1974), and determined that the
process employed by the ACI in this case was sufficient.
Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R does not attack Magistrate
Judge
Almond’s
legal
analysis,
but
instead
discusses
various
facts not in the record and argues that additional discovery
should have been permitted prior to any summary judgment ruling.
With respect to Plaintiff’s arguments that are based on facts
not in the record, such arguments must fail because facts not in
4
the record are not considered at the summary judgment stage. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
The
Court
arguments
Judge
finds
unpersuasive.
Almond
Summary
also
defer
Judgment
Plaintiff
ruling
until
Plaintiff’s
on
after
discovery-related
requested
Defendants’
additional
that
Magistrate
Cross-Motion
discovery
had
for
been
taken. (ECF No. 61.) Magistrate Judge Almond denied that Motion,
explaining that “Plaintiff’s present argument that discovery is
necessary is directly contradicted by his prior representation
to the Court in his own Motion for Summary Judgment that ‘there
are
no
genuine
(05/10/16
Text
issues
Order.)
of
material
Plaintiff
facts’
requested
in
this
that
case.”
this
Court
overturn that Order and permit additional discovery. (See ECF
No. 70, 71, and 72.) The Court declines to do so.
A district court may only overturn non-dispositive orders
of a magistrate judge if they are “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.”
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)).
“In conducting this review,
the
from
district
magistrate
court
judge’s
must
refrain
pre-trial
discovery
second
guessing
rulings.”
the
Harvard
Pilgrim Health Care of New England v. Thompson, 318 F. Supp. 2d
1, 6 (D.R.I. 2004) (citing Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co.
v. Jenckes Mach. Co., No. 85–0586, 1986 WL 9717, at *1 (D.R.I.
Feb. 19, 1986)). As Magistrate Judge Almond had a reasonable
5
basis to deny Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery, the
Court will not disrupt that ruling. Magistrate Judge Almond was
also well within his discretion to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to
Stay
and
Motion
for
Leave
to
File
Objection
to
his
Order.
Neither of these decisions were clearly erroneous.
III. Other Outstanding Matters
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
requesting
that
the
“Court
issue
an
injunction
ordering
Defendant Wall to ensure that his staff permit the plaintiff to
make legal copies.”
(Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 1, ECF No. 92.)
The
Court must weigh the following factors when considering a motion
for preliminary injunction: “(1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of
success on the merits, (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm,
(3) the balance of relevant equities, and (4) the effect of the
court’s
Equip.
action
Co.
v.
on
the
public
Caterpillar,
interest.”
Inc.,
883
Universal
F.
Supp.
2d
Truck
337,
&
338
(D.R.I. 2012) (citing Peoples Fed. Sav. Bank v. People’s United
Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2012)).
Here, because Plaintiff
has shown no basis for his claim, his motion for preliminary
injunction
is
DENIED.
See
Ross-Simons
of
Warwick,
Inc.
v.
Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1996) (“Likelihood of
success
is
the
main
bearing
framework.”).
6
wall
of
the
four-factor
Lastly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Replies to
Document Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 (ECF No. 90) is DENIED
AS MOOT.
All of the relevant motions have already been ruled on
by Magistrate Judge Almond or in this Order.
IV.
Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
R&R
is
ADOPTED
and
Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Appeals of Magistrate Judge Almond’s Text
Orders
(ECF
Nos.
70,
71,
72)
and
Motion
for
Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 92) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Replies (ECF No. 90) is DENIED AS MOOT. Final judgment
will enter for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: January 4, 2017
7
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?