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.

Reese v. Bouffard

United States District Court, D. Maine

January 28, 2015

GEOFFREY REESE, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BOUFFARD, et als., Defendant

GEOFFREY REESE, Plaintiff, Pro se, WARREN, ME.

For ROBERT BOUFFARD, MIKE TAUSEK, TONY MENDEZ, HOLLY HARRIS, Defendants: JAMES E. FORTIN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AUGUSTA, ME.

For MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SARGENT JOEL PARSONS, DWIGHT FOWLES, GREG THAYER, RUSSELL WORCESTER JR, Defendants: JAMES E. FORTIN, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AUGUSTA, ME.

OPINION

John C. Nivison, United States Magistrate Judge.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

In this action, Plaintiff Geoffrey Reese, proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by, inter alia, placing him in " administrative segregation" in response to his challenge to the requirement that he share a cell (" double bunk") with another inmate.

The matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44).[1] Through their motion, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff has failed to state an actionable due process claim or equal protection claim.

As explained below, following a review of the pleadings, and after consideration of the parties' arguments, the recommendation is that the Court grant the Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts set forth herein are derived from the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1), Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 9 and 9-1), and Second Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 34 and 34-1), which allegations are supplemented by numerous exhibits attached to the pleadings, and which facts are deemed true when evaluating a motion to dismiss.[2] Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1998).

In his complaint, filed June 16, 2014, Plaintiff sets forth five claims:

(1) That on February 3, 2014, he was " erroneously placed on [administrative segregation] for refusing to compromise his right to be free from discrimination and selective enforcement in protest of being approached to double-bunk contrary to the criteri[a] set forth in departmental policy" and
That certain evaluation and review proceedings set forth in policy were not fully observed as stated in the policy;
(2) That on February 3, 2014, he was charged with refusing to obey an order and with threatening in connection with his protest concerning the double bunk order;
That a continuance of the disciplinary hearing was not granted to permit him to confer with " counsel substitute prisoner Dwyer" (PageID # 6);
That his argument that his statement on February 3, 2014, was not a threat was " dismissed" even though it was an " arguable interpretation" (Id.);
That he could not purchase stationary and hygiene items " until approximately thirty (30) days of being housed in the special management unit" (PageID # 7);
That the placement prevented him from having prayer oils and rosary beads, although he was able to have a prayer rug ...

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.