Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Belskis v. Somerset County Jail

United States District Court, District of Maine

June 30, 2014

JOSEPH EDWARD BOVIN BELSKIS, Plaintiff,
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants

Plaintiff JOSEPH EDWARD BOVIN represented by JOSEPH EDWARD BOVIN, BELSKISBELSKIS

Defendant SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant MEDPRO ASSOCIATES

Defendant MAJOR DAVID ALLEN represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant MAJOR COREY SWOPE represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant TRANSPORT OFFICER represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER WAYNE KLINE, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant TRANSPORT OFFICER TRAVIS represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER ANDREWS, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant OFFICER JOHN MARONEY represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant SARGENT ALIJAH MUNN represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant CAPTAIN STEVE GIGGY represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER, PETER T. MARCHESI

Defendant PA ROBERT ELLIS

Defendant SUPERVISOR LISA CATES

Defendant RN SARAH LAPLANTE

Defendant RN TRINA LITTLEFIELD

Defendant RN MARIE PATTERSON

RECOMMENDED DECISION

JOHN C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Complaint (ECF No. 23) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 24). Through his motions, Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim against Defendants for damages that he allegedly sustained as the result of his incarceration at the Somerset County Jail.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter on July 31, 2013, (ECF No. 1). In response to Plaintiff’s complaint, on August 22, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16). On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (ECF No. 19), which motion the Court granted (ECF No. 21).[1] As the result of the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, Defendant’s motion to dismiss was moot.

This action, in which Plaintiff filed his original complaint, is concluded. Plaintiff nevertheless seeks to “reinstate” the dismissed complaint. One purpose of a dismissal without prejudice is to permit a party to assert the claim again. Logic and fundamental fairness, however, suggest that the claim must be asserted in a subsequent action. Otherwise, a party could initiate a case, obtain a dismissal without prejudice to avoid the possibility of an adverse disposition on the merits, and reinstate the same case without any consequence to the dismissal. Such a result would be particularly problematic if the statute of limitations on the claim or a portion of the claim arguably expired between the dismissal and the party’s attempt to “reinstate” the claim. If a party wants to reassert the claim, or an amended version of the claim, therefore, the party must commence a new action.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, the recommendation is that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Complaint (ECF No. 23), and that the Court declare Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint moot (ECF No. 24).[2]


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.