United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON OBJECTION TO ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 14, 2014, James Stile filed a civil complaint against
Cumberland County and twenty Cumberland County corrections
officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
Defendants violated various of his constitutional rights by
means including using excessive force against him while he
was a pretrial detainee. Compl. (ECF No. 1). The
case has inched along for over three and one-half years;
progress has been incremental at best.
dispositive motion deadline became a moving target, and on
July 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the
dispositive motion deadline be thirty days after the
Defendants completed Mr. Stile's deposition. Am.
Scheduling Order at 1 (ECF No. 55); Order (ECF
No. 103); Report of Telephone Conf. and Order at 4
(ECF No. 135). On August 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued an order establishing September 15, 2017 as the
deadline for filing dispositive motions. Order Removing
Stay/Establishing Mot. Deadline (ECF No. 195). On
September 19, 2017, this deadline was extended to December 1,
2017. Order (ECF No. 200).
October 6, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings and for summary judgment. Defs.'
Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and for Summ. J. (ECF No.
204). Mr. Stile's responses were initially due by October
27, 2017, but on February 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
allowed an extension until March 23, 2018. Procedural
Order at 1 (ECF No. 221). Then on March 5, 2018, Mr.
Stile moved for another extension and made other motions.
Mot. for Extension of Time to Resp. to Summ. J. Mot. and
for Court to Issue Writ to the United States Marshals
Serv./U.S. Att'y General for Transfer of Pl. to Danbury
Conn. F.C.I. (ECF No. 223); On May 29, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge extended his response deadline to June 15,
2018. Order Granting Pl.'s Mots. for Order Regarding
Disc., to Extend Time to File Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., and
for Transfer (ECF No. 231). Mr. Stile has yet to respond
to the dispositive motions now pending over nine months. As
part of the Magistrate Judge's May 29, 2018 order, he
addressed Mr. Stile's motion for transfer and his motion
for an order regarding the production of discovery. The
Magistrate Judge denied the motion for order of transfer.
Id. at 3. He also denied Mr. Stile's motion for
discovery, stating that he was “satisfied that the
documents produced by Defendants were forwarded to
Plaintiff's current facility and are available to
Plaintiff.” Id. at 2.
JAMES STILE'S OBJECTION
11, 2018, Mr. Stile objected to the May 29, 2018 order of the
Magistrate Judge. Pl.'s Obj. to Magistrate's
Order as Concerns Pl.'s Mots. for Order Regarding Disc.,
to Extend Time to File Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., and for
Transfer (ECF No. 235). In his motion to extend time,
Mr. Stile recited a history “beginning in November of
2017” of what he claims has been “obstruction of
the Plaintiff in meeting the Court deadlines in completing
his responses to the summary judgment motions filed by the
Defendants.” Id. At the end, Mr. Stile says
that he “anticipates a need for 90 days to complete the
responses to the remaining dispositive motions allowing he
can get reasonable access to laptop computer to review the
CD/DVD/s.” Id. at 6. Mr. Stile admits that
“[w]ithout that access, it does not matter how long the
Court grants in extensions, the responses will not get
done.” Id. Mr. Stile stresses that he
“MUST have access to the DC/DVD's as they are a
necessary element to responding to the dispositive motions
especially as voluminous as these are.” Id.
Mr. Stile reiterates his continued demand that the Court
order the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to transfer him to
Strafford County Jail in New Hampshire where he would have
“unimpeded access to a computer, LEXIS NEXIS, postage
and copies and would thereby be better equipped to
expeditiously finish the responses to the dispositive
motions.” Id. Mr. Stile claims that this
“can be done in the interests of justice.”
standard for reviewing a non-dispositive order of a
Magistrate Judge is that the order must be either
“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to
law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(a). The Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's May 29,
2018 order based on a clearly erroneous or contrary to law
standard. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous'
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948); United States v. Urban Lot St. G.
103, 819 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2016); Bennett v. Kent
Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 623 F.Supp.2d 246, 250 (D.R.I. 2009).
“A finding is contrary to law if the magistrate judge
has misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law.”
Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 32 F.Supp.2d 162,
164 (D.N.J. 1998).
Judicial Transfer Authority
to the last issue first, Mr. Stile is simply incorrect in
asserting that this Court has the authority to transfer him
to Strafford County Jail in New Hampshire or the Danbury,
Connecticut F.C.I. The United States Supreme Court has
written that Congress has given the BOP “plenary
control, subject to statutory constraints, over ‘the
place of the prisoner's imprisonment.'”
Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011)
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)).
law permits a court to make a recommendation to the BOP,
“[b]ut decisionmaking authority rests with the
BOP.” Id. at 331. The applicable ...