United States District Court, D. Maine
JON R. ADAMS, Plaintiff
SCOTT LANDRY et al., Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
action, Plaintiff contends that while he was confined at the
Maine Correctional Center in Windham, Defendants violated his
constitutional right to protection against a serious threat
posed by another prisoner.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff did not
file a response to the motion.
a review of the record, and after consideration of
Defendants' arguments, I recommend the Court grant the
17, 2015, Plaintiff commenced a prior action in which he
asserted the same claims he asserts in this action. Adams
v. Landry, No. 2:15-cv-00282-JAW (Am. Compl., ECF No.
25) (the prior action). In the prior action, on September 28,
2015, Plaintiff informed the Court that he was no longer in
state custody, and provided the Court with a new address.
(Prior Action, ECF No. 31.) On November 27, 2015, Plaintiff
advised the Court that he was confined at the Cumberland
County Jail, and he requested information regarding the
“status of [his] pending suits in this
Court.” (Prior Action, ECF No. 36.) On December 7,
2015, Plaintiff informed the Court that he was soon to be
released to a rehabilitation center in Auburn, Maine, and he
provided the address of the center. (Prior Action, ECF No.
January, 2016, the U.S. Postal Service returned to the Court
articles of mail the Court sent to Plaintiff. The Postal
Service stamped the envelopes “not deliverable as
addressed, unable to forward, ” and the writing on both
envelopes suggested that Plaintiff had moved from the
rehabilitation center. (Prior Action, ECF Nos. 40, 41.)
Plaintiff did not inform the Court of any further change of
address or otherwise make filings or communicate with the
Court for more than six months. The Court subsequently
granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the prior action
based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute, and entered
judgment dismissing the action without prejudice. (Prior
Action, ECF Nos. 48, 49.)
2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to “refile” or
“reopen” the prior action. (Prior Action, ECF No.
51.) At the time, Plaintiff again was confined at the Maine
Correctional Center. The Court denied Plaintiff's request
to reopen the case, but noted that Plaintiff could refile the
action. (Prior Action, ECF No. 56.)
filed the complaint in this action on September 14, 2017.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff was released from custody, and he
provided the Court with notice of a new address, which notice
the Court docketed on January 2, 2018. (ECF No. 18.) On May
1, 2018, upon a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915 and 1915A, the Court dismissed four individuals named as
defendants in the complaint, leaving as defendants Penny
Bailey, Glean Brown, and Scott McCaffery. (Order Affirming
Recommended Decision and Addressing Other Motions, ECF No.
19.) When the Court sent Plaintiff copies of its May 2018
decision and related orders, the U.S. Postal Service returned
the mail with the notation “return to sender, not
deliverable as addressed, unable to forward.” (ECF Nos.
9, 2018, Defendants filed the pending Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) In the motion, Defendants
report that after his release from the Maine Correctional
Center, Plaintiff violated the terms of his probation, was
arrested on or about June 25, 2018, and at the time of the
filing of the motion, was confined at the Cumberland County
Jail. (Id. at 6.) Defendants sent a copy of the
motion to Plaintiff, addressed to the Cumberland County
Jail. (Id. at 12.)
action arises from the March 31, 2015, assault against
Plaintiff while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Maine
Correctional Center, in Windham Maine. (Defendants'
Statement of Material Facts, ¶¶ 1, 2, 3.) In both
the prior action and in this action, Plaintiff alleged that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, and
failed to protect him from the assault. (Id.
¶¶ 6, 7, 13.) In this action, Plaintiff also
asserted a claim for negligent supervision. (Id.
times relevant to this action, Defendants Penny Bailey, Glean
Brown, and Scott McCaffery were employees of the Maine
Department of Corrections. (Id. ¶ 18.) The
Maine Department of Corrections is a cabinet-level department
and State agency established by the Maine Legislature.
(Id. ¶ 19, citing 34-A M.R.S.A. §§
asserts his claims against Defendants Penny Bailey, Glean
Brown, and Scott McCaffery in both their individual and
official capacities as employees of the Maine Department of
Corrections. (Id. ¶ 20, ...