Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Goodwin v. Maloney

United States District Court, D. Maine

December 19, 2014

MICHAEL R. GOODWIN, Plaintiff,
v.
LOREEN MALONEY and RHONDA WALTERS, Defendants

For MICHAEL R GOODWIN, Plaintiff: KATHERINE M. GATTI, MCTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY & TOKER, P.A., TOPSHAM, ME.

For LOREEN MALONEY, RHONDA WALTERS, Defendants: JASON P. DONOVAN, THOMPSON & BOWIE, LLP, PORTLAND, ME.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION[1]

John C. Nivison, United States Magistrate Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff Michael R. Goodwin contends that Defendants Loreen Maloney and Rhonda Walters acted with deliberate indifference regarding his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee at the Somerset County Jail.

Defendants Loreen Maloney and Rhonda Walters moved for summary judgment citing in part Plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.[2] (ECF No. 73.) The Court determined that the record included disputed factual issues as to whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. The Court, therefore, denied the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 84.)

Because the Court concluded that disputed factual issues precluded the entry of summary judgment, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies.[3]

Findings of Fact

After consideration of the evidence, I find the following facts:[4]

1. From January 29, 2010, through February 5, 2010, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Somerset County Jail. Plaintiff was transferred to the Maine Correctional Center on February 5, 2010.

2. For the time during which Plaintiff was an inmate, the Somerset County Jail maintained a written policy that governed inmate grievances (the grievance policy).

3. The grievance policy is explained in the Somerset County Jail Handbook that is provided to each inmate.

4. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of a copy of the handbook on January 31, 2010. Plaintiff also acknowledged receipt of the handbook on two other occasions when he was incarcerated at the Somerset County Jail in 2009.

5. Plaintiff filed a grievance in 2009 on a matter that is unrelated to the subject matter of this action. Personnel at the Somerset County Jail responded to the grievance the day after Plaintiff filed the grievance.

6. Plaintiff was aware of the grievance policy when he was an inmate in 2010. Plaintiff also knew that he had to exhaust the grievance procedure before he could commence a civil action based on any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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