Melise v. Wall et al

Filing 149

ORDER regarding 107 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 111 Motion for Summary Judgment; 112 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 3/7/2023. (Potter, Carrie)

Case 1:17-cv-00490-MSM-PAS Document 149 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3521

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
STEPHEN MELISE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE T. SALISBURY, JR., in his
official capacity as Acting Director of
the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections; ASHBEL T. WALL,
individually as former Director of the
Rhode Island Department of
Corrections; FRED VOHR, alias,
individually and in his official
capacity as Medical Director of the
Rhode Island Department of
Corrections; JENNIFER CLARKE,
alias, individually and in her official
capacity as Medical Director of the
Rhode Island Department of
Corrections; KERRI MCCAUGHEY,
alias, individually and in her official
capacity as a registered employee of
the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections; STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, alias; and JOHN
DOES 1-10, alias,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:17-CV-0490-MSM-PAS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
On February 27, 2023, the Court heard argument on the following motions:
•

The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of the plaintiff, Stephen Melise
(ECF No. 107).

1

Case 1:17-cv-00490-MSM-PAS Document 149 Filed 03/07/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3522

•

The Motion for Summary Judgment of the defendants Rhode Island
Department of Corrections (“DOC”), Wayne T. Salisbury Jr., Kerri
McCaughey, and Ashbel T. Wall (the “State Defendants”) (ECF No. 111).

•

The Motion for Summary Judgment of the defendants Jennifer Clarke and
Fred Vohr (the “Medical Program Director Defendants”) (ECF No. 112).
After considering the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, the

Court holds, for the reasons stated on the record, that the Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED; the State Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART; and the Medical Program Director Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
Specifically as to each Count of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court
holds as follows:
•

On Count I, asserting violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12132, against defendant DOC, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, and
the State Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

•

On Count II, asserting violation of the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, R.I.G.L.
§ 42-112-1, against defendants DOC, McCaughey, Wall, Vohr, and Clarke, the
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED; the State Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED; and
the Medical Program Director Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

•

On Count III, asserting violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794,
against defendant DOC, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, and the State
Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

•

On Count IV, asserting violation of the Rhode Island Civil Rights of People
with Disabilities Act, § 42-87-1, against defendants DOC, McCaughey, Wall,
Vohr, and Clarke, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED; the Medical Program
2

Case 1:17-cv-00490-MSM-PAS Document 149 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3523

Director Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED; and the State Defendants’ Motion
is GRANTED as to DOC and McCaughey in her official capacity, but DENIED
as to McCaughey in her individual capacity and against defendant Wall.
•

On Count V, asserting violation of the right of freedom from cruel and unusual
punishment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants McCaughey, Wall,
Vohr, and Clarke, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED; the State Defendants’
Motion is DENIED; and the Medical Program Director Defendants’ Motion is
GRANTED.

•

On Count VI, asserting violation of Article I, § 8 of the Rhode Island
Constitution against defendants DOC, McCaughey, Wall, Vohr, and Clarke,
the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED; the State Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED;
and the Medical Program Director Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

•

On Count VII, asserting negligence against defendants DOC, McCaughey, and
Clarke, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED; the State Defendants’ Motion is
DENIED; and the Medical Program Director Defendants’ Motion is
GRANTED.
Finally, given the genuine issues of material fact noted on the record, which

impact the State Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, the Court defers judgment
on that issue. See Ringuette v. City of Fall River, 146 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding
that when factual disputes exist pertaining to qualified immunity that cannot be
resolved on summary judgment, “judges have sometimes deferred a decision until the
trial testimony was in or even submitted the factual issues to the jury”).

3

Case 1:17-cv-00490-MSM-PAS Document 149 Filed 03/07/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3524

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
March 7, 2023

4