United States District Court, D. Maine
STEVE ANCTIL, JR. Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, FITZPATRICK, et al. Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ADDRESSING
OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
performed a de novo review, the Court affirms the Magistrate
Judge's recommended decision without objection in which
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny a deputy
warden's motion to dismiss an inmate's failure to
protect and failure to train claim.
February 24, 2016, Steve Anctil, Jr., an inmate at the Maine
State Prison, filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against a number of state of Maine officials, contending
that the prison system, specifically the Maine State Prison,
violated his civil rights by mishandling his grievances.
Compl. (ECF No. 1). After Mr. Anctil twice amended
the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge screened the Second
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and
§ 1915A and issued a recommended decision on October 24,
2016. Recommended Decision After Screening Compl.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A (ECF
No. 36). In the recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court dismiss all of Mr. Anctil's
claims, except the failure to protect/failure to train claim
against Deputy Warden Ross. Id. at 19. On September
27, 2017, the Court affirmed in part and rejected in part the
Magistrate Judge's recommended decision. Order
Affirming in Part and Rejecting in Part the Recommended
Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 68). The Court
allowed not only the failure to protect/train claim against
Deputy Warden Ross to proceed, but also the legal mail claim
against Commissioner Fitzpatrick, Warden Bouffard, and Warden
Liberty. Id. at 13-14.
October 5, 2017, Deputy Warden Troy Ross filed a motion to
dismiss Mr. Anctil's Second Amended Complaint. Mot.
to Dismiss of Def. Troy Ross (ECF No. 70). On November
8, 2017, Mr. Anctil responded to the motion to dismiss.
Obj. to Def. Ross's Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No.
75). On December 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a
recommended decision on Deputy Warden Ross' motion to
dismiss. Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss of Def.
Troy Ross (ECF No. 80). In the recommended decision, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the motion
to dismiss. Id. at 6. Deputy Warden Ross has not
objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision.
the filing of the Magistrate Judge's recommended
decision, Mr. Anctil filed two additional motions that the
Court addresses here: (1) a motion for scheduling order; and
(2) a motion for an order directing Deputy Ross to file an
answer to the complaint. Taking the second issue first, when
Deputy Ross filed a motion to dismiss, the time period for
filing an answer is generally delayed until fourteen days
after notice of the court's ruling on a motion to
dismiss. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A). Therefore, once Deputy
Ross filed his motion to dismiss, by rule, he was not
required to file an answer. With the issuance of this
decision, however, Deputy Ross will be required to file an
answer within fourteen days of notice of this decision.
the Scheduling Order, although a Scheduling Order could have
issued with the entry of appearance of counsel for each
Defendant, it made more sense to resolve whether the case was
going to proceed against Deputy Ross before issuing the
Scheduling Order. Now that the motion to dismiss has been
resolved, the Court anticipates that a proposed Scheduling
Order will issue forthwith.
Court dismisses both of these motions as now moot.
the absence of objection on the part of Deputy Warden Ross to
the recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge, the Court
performed a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's
recommended decision, together with the entire record, and
the Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge for the reasons set forth in his recommended decision.
The Court AFFIRMS the recommended decision of the Magistrate
Judge and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Troy Ross
(ECF No. 70).
Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Request
that Court Issue Standard Scheduling Order (ECF No. 81) and
Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Directing that