United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND PLAINTIFF'S RELATED MOTIONS
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action, James Stile alleges that while he was a pretrial
detainee at the Somerset County Jail, Defendants deprived him
of several constitutionally-guaranteed rights,  as well as his
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
the Court are the following motions:
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for
Summary Judgment. Majority Defs.' Mot. for J. on the
Pleadings and for Summ. J. (ECF No. 431);
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for Summary Judgment
by Defendants Keith Plourd and Jeffrey Jacques. Defs.
Plourd's and Jacques's Mot. for J. on the Pleadings
and for Summ. J. (ECF No. 434);
Defendants Somerset County and Barry DeLong's (the County
Defendants) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion
for Summary Judgment. County Defs.' Mot. for J. on
the Pleadings and for Summ. J. (ECF No. 438);
Defendant David Allen's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Def. Allen's Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 440);
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Video Exhibits, including a
separate motion for a ruling on the motion to strike.
Pl.'s Mot. to Strike Video Exs. (ECF No. 499);
Mot. for Ruling on Mot. to Strike (ECF No. 583);
Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Grant Order Pursuant to
Rule 56(d). Pl.'s Mot. for Court to Grant Order
Pursuant to Rule 56(d) (ECF No. 562).
1, 2013, James Stile filed a § 1983 suit alleging
various constitutional violations and state tort claims
against numerous defendants. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On
August 14, 2014, Mr. Stile filed an Amended Complaint with
authorization of this Court, except as to the “medical
defendants” and corrections officer Simonds. Am.
Compl. Final (ECF No. 92) (Final Compl.);
Order (ECF No. 86). Since then, this case has been
extended largely in part due to Mr. Stile's
unconventional and repetitive filings. At the time of this
order, this case has nearly 600 docket entries. The Court,
therefore, will not review this case's entire procedural
history but will focus on the procedural history relevant to
the pending motions.
August 15, 2017, a Magistrate Judge of this Court removed the
stay on this case and ordered that all dispositive motions be
filed by September 15, 2017. Order Removing
Stay/Establishing Mot. Deadline (ECF No. 427). On
September 13, 2017, Majority Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment
together with a statement of material facts. Majority
Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and for Summ. J.
(ECF No. 431) (Majority Mots.); Statement
of Material Facts in Support of Defs.' Mot. for Summ.
J. (ECF No. 432) (Majority DSMF). Also, on September 13,
2017, Defendants Keith Plourd and Jeffrey Jacques filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary
judgment together with a statement of material facts.
Defs. Plourd's and Jacques's Mot. for J. on the
Pleadings and for Summ. J. (ECF No. 434)
(Plourd/Jacques Mots.); Statement of Material
Facts by Defs. Keith Plourd and Jeffrey Jacques (ECF No.
435) (Plourd/Jacques DSMF). On September 15, 2017, County
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and
motion for summary judgment together with a statement of
material facts. County Defs.' Mot. for J. on the
Pleadings and for Summ. J. (ECF No. 438) (County
Mots.); County Defs. Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No.
439) (County DSMF). On the same day, Defendant David Allen
filed a motion for summary judgment together with a statement
of material facts together with a statement of material
facts. Def. Allen's Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No.
440) (Allen. Mot.); Def. David Allen's
Statement of Material Facts in Support of Mot. for Summ.
J. (ECF No. 441) (Allen DSMF).
December 7, 2017, Mr. Stile filed an opposition to majority
defendant's motions for judgment on the pleadings and
summary judgment along with his statement of fact.
Statement of Fact & Opp'n to Mot. for Summ.
J. (ECF No. 486). However, Mr. Stile subsequently
represented that he could not completely respond to the
various motions for summary judgment because he did not have
certain evidence relevant to the dispositive motions, and on
April 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge extended the time for
him to complete his responses to Defendants' four motions
until May 25, 2018. Order on Mot. to Extend Time
(ECF No. 540).
22, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a response in opposition to
Defendants Plourd's and Jacques's motion for judgment
on the pleadings and summary judgment. Resp. & Mem.
of Law in Opp'n to Defs. Plourd's and Jacques's
Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and Summ. J. (ECF No. 554)
(Resp. to Defs. Plourd's and Jacque's
Mots.). Defendants Plourd and Jacques filed their reply
on June 29, 2018. Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot.
for J. on the Pleadings and Summ. J. by Defs. Plourd and
Jacques (ECF No. 556) (Defs. Plourd and Jacques
5, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a response and affidavit to County
Defendants' motions. Aff. and Resp. to County
Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and for Summ. J.
(ECF No. 561) (Resp. to County Defs.' Mots.).
Mr. Stile filed another response on July 16, 2018. Resp.
to County Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and for
Summ. J. (ECF No. 566) (Resp. to County Defs.'
Mots. II). County Defendants filed a reply on July 30,
2018). County's Reply to Pl.'s Resp. to Mot. for
J. on the Pleadings & Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No.
575) (County Defs.' Reply).
16, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a response in opposition to David
Allen's motion for summary judgment. Pl.'s Resp.
to Def. Allen's Mot. for Summ. J. with Incorporated Mem.
of Law (ECF No. 567) (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.
Allen's Mot.). Defendant Allen filed a reply on July
26, 2018. Def. David Allen Reply Mem. of Law in Support
of Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 570) (Def. Allen's
30, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a response to Majority
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
summary judgment. Resp. to Majority Defs.' Mot. for
J. on the Pleadings and Summ. J. (ECF No. 576)
(Pl.'s Majority Resp.). On August 9, 2018,
Majority Defendants filed a reply to Mr. Stile's response
to their motions. Defs.' Reply Mem. of Law in Support
of Their Mot. for J. on the Pleadings & Summ. J.
(ECF No. 587) (Majority Defs. Reply). Mr. Stile
filed a supplemental response to his own response to Majority
Defendants' motions on August 20, 2018, and Majority
Defendants filed a supplemental reply to Mr. Stile's
supplemental response on August 31, 2018. Pl.'s
Suppl. Resp. (ECF No. 589) (Pl.'s Supp. Majority
Resp.); Defs. Suppl. Reply (ECF No. 592);
(Majority Suppl. Reply).
before the Court is Mr. Stile's motion to strike video
exhibits filed on March 1, 2018, and a separate motion for a
ruling on that motion, filed on August 6, 2018. Pl.'s
Mot. to Strike Video Exs. (ECF No. 499); Mot. for
Ruling on Mot. to Strike (ECF No. 583). Mr. Stile also
filed a motion for order pursuant to Rule 56(d).
Pl.'s Mot. for Court to Grant Order Pursuant to Rule
56(d) (ECF No. 562).
Summary Judgment Standard
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “After the moving party has
presented evidence in support of its motion for summary
judgment, ‘the burden shifts to the nonmoving party,
with respect to each issue on which he has the burden of
proof, to demonstrate that a trier of fact reasonably could
find in his favor.'” Woodward v. Emulex
Corp., 714 F.3d 632, 637 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting
Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 158
(1st Cir. 1998)). A court reviews the factual record in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving
evidentiary conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in
the non-movant's favor. Perry v. Roy, 782 F.3d
73, 77 (1st Cir. 2015). If a court's review of the record
reveals evidence sufficient to support findings in favor of
the non-moving party on one or more of his claims, a
trial-worthy controversy exists and summary judgment must be
denied as to any supported claim. Id. (“The
district court's role is limited to assessing whether
there exists evidence such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Unsupported claims are properly
dismissed. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
Local Rules 7(b) and 56 and Pro Se Prisoner
Defendants also filed accompanying motions for summary
judgment, the Court effectively resolved each motion for
judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the accompanying
motion for summary judgment. Whether technically the Court is
ruling on the motions for judgment on the pleadings converted
into motions for summary judgment or on the motions for
summary judgment themselves is academic. To clarify the
record, the Court is dismissing without prejudice each of the
motions for judgment on the pleadings and has grounded its
disposition on the pending motions for summary judgment.
various unorthodox filings and numerous extensions in this
case have made the resolution of the pending motions
unnecessarily complicated and obtuse. Local Rule 7(b) states
that “[u]nless within 21 days after the filing of a
motion the opposing party files written objection thereto,
incorporating a memorandum of law, the opposing party shall
be deemed to have waived objection.” Local Rule 56
section (c) provides that a party opposing a motion for
summary judgment shall submit its own statement of material
facts in which it admits, denies, or qualifies the
movant's statement of material facts, and section (f)
provides that facts shall be deemed admitted if not properly
controverted. Local Rule 7(b) has been extensively applied to
a variety of motions and the Court enjoys “broad
latitude” in administrating its application. NEPSK,
Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.
2012). In NEPSK, the First Circuit discussed how a
court should approach a motion for summary judgment when an
opposing party failed to follow a local rule. Id. at
5-9. The First Circuit concluded that a court may not simply
grant a motion for summary judgment because an opposing party
failed to properly respond, but must instead “determine
whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Id.
at 8 (internal quotations omitted). However, “[b]y
failing to file the required response within the time
prescribed by the applicable local rule, the non-moving party
waives the right to controvert the facts asserted by the
moving party in the motion for summary judgment and the
supporting materials accompanying it.” Id. at
8 (quoting Jaroma v. Massey, 873 F.2d 17, 21 (1st
same time, courts are generally more relaxed about compliance
with procedural rules when a litigant is acting pro se. In
Clarke v. Blais, 473 F.Supp.2d (D. Me.
2007), Judge Hornby thoughtfully outlined the competing
interests courts encounter when dealing with ineffective rule
compliance by pro se litigants. In Demmons v.
Tritch, 484 F.Supp.2d 177, 182-84 (D. Me. 2007), this
Court confronted the same questions and stated “[t]here
are no easy solutions” to these issues. Even so, the
First Circuit has written that pro se litigants are not
exempt from local and federal rules. See Rivera v.
Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 27-28 & n.2 (1st Cir. 2000).
case, the Defendants filed their dispositive motions in
mid-September of 2017. The Court granted in part Mr.
Stile's motion for an extension of time to respond to
these motions and set the deadline as November 15, 2017.
Order (ECF No. 444). Mr. Stile subsequently filed
four partial responses to Defendants' statements of
material facts nearly a month after the Court's imposed
deadline on December 12, 2017. Resp. to Statement of
Fact (ECF No. 483) (Resp. to Statement of Fact
I); Resp. to Statement of Fact (ECF No. 484)
(Resp. to Statement of Fact II); Resp. to
Statement of Fact (ECF No. 485) (Resp. to Statement
of Fact III); Resp. to Statement of Fact (ECF
No. 486) (Resp. to Statement of Fact IV). In his
letter accompanying these responses, Mr. Stile recognized
that the Court extended his response time to November 15,
2017, but stated that given the voluminous pleadings, and
other issues, he could not meet that deadline.
Letter at 2 (ECF No. 487). Then, after a telephonic
conference on February 14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
extended the time for Mr. Stile to file his response
memoranda to Defendants' motions until April 20, 2018.
Procedural Order (ECF No. 497). Subsequent to this
order, but before the April 20 deadline, Mr. Stile filed
fourteen motions and letters with the Court.
April 20, 2018, the Court again extended Mr. Stile's
response time to Defendants' dispositive motions until
May 25, 2018. Order on Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No.
540). Mr. Stile eventually filed a response to Defendants
Plourd's and Jacques' motions on June 22, 2018,
almost a full month after the Court's deadline. Resp.
to Defs. Plourd's & Jacque's Mots. (ECF No.
554). Mr. Stile filed a response to Defendant's
Allen's Motion for Summary Judgment on July 16, 2018,
nearly two months after the response deadline. Pl.'s
Resp. to Def. Allen's Mot. (ECF No. 567). Mr. Stile
also filed an Affidavit pertaining to County Defendants'
motions on July 5, 2018, and his response to their motions on
July 16, 2018. Resp. to County Defs.' Mots.
(ECF No. 561); Resp. to County Defs.' Mots. II
(ECF No. 566). Lastly, Mr. Stile filed his response to
Majority Defendants' motions on July 30, 2018, with a
supplemental filing on August 20, 2018. Resp. to Majority
Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and Summ. J.
(ECF No. 576); Pl.'s Suppl. Resp. (ECF No. 589).
Court stated in its order entered on September 4, 2018, this
case has been pending for over five years and Mr. Stile
elected to name dozens of Defendants. Order on Mot. For
Judicial Intervention and for Extension of Time and on Mot.
to a Partial Resps. and to Allow the R. to Remain Open, and
Mot. for Ct. to Obtain Bate Stamped Materials from Defs.'
that Pl. Cited in his Resps. to Dispositive Pleadings at
14 (ECF No. 594). Mr. Stile's responses to
Defendants' dispositive motions have been unorthodox,
untimely, and at times incoherent. If the Court ruled on the
pending motions for summary judgment based on Mr. Stile's
submissions in response to the dispositive motions and if it
applied the rules strictly against him, the Defendants would
prevail in every motion, because Mr. Stile failed to comply
with the Local Rules in presenting his responses.
in an effort to be fair (perhaps excessively so) to Mr.
Stile, the Court treated his two complaints--the initial and
the amended--as verified complaints, which at the summary
judgment stage may be viewed as affidavit equivalents, to
frame his position in this suit. Sheinkopf v. Stone,
927 F.2d 1259, 1262 (1st Cir. 1991); Demmons, 484
F.Supp.2d at 182. This District has generally considered
prisoner affidavits even if noncompliant with Local Rule 56.
See e.g., Clarke v. Blais, 473 F.Supp.2d
124, 130 (D. Me. 2007). Mr. Stile's two complaints are
notarized and contain the words “sworn to before
me” above the notary's stamp. See Compl.
at 23; Final Compl. at 31. The Court considers this
sufficient for a verified complaint and treats both as
affidavit equivalents. At the same time, the Court will
consider only specific facts outlined in Mr. Stile's
complaints, and will not consider conclusory allegations that
do not make a factual showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial. Sheinkopf, 927 F.2d at 1262; Sullivan
v. City of Springfield, 561 F.3d 7, 24 (1st Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted) (Courts will “ignore conclusory
allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported
speculation”); Perry v. Ryan, No. 90-1826,
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7098, at *7, 940 F.2d 646 (1st Cir.
1991) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Criminal Case
United States v. James Stile, a federal grand jury
charged Mr. Stile with, and he ultimately pleaded guilty to,
Robbery of a Controlled Substance from a DEA Registered
Pharmacy. Indictment (ECF No. 8 - No.
1:11-cr-00185-JAW); Min. Entry (ECF No. 541 - No.
1:11-cr-00185-JAW). On May 29, 2015, this Court sentenced Mr.
Stile to 120 months incarceration, five years supervised
release, a special assessment of $100.00, restitution in the
amount of $13, 306.93, and no fine. J. (ECF No. 579
Stile first appeared in this Court on the criminal charges on
November 2, 2011 following the execution of a federal arrest
warrant. Arrest Warrant Returned Executed (ECF No.
20 - No. 1:11-cr-00185-JAW). At a November 8, 2011, detention
hearing, the Magistrate Judge ordered Mr. Stile detained
pending trial, and Mr. Stile's pretrial detention
continued at the Somerset County Jail, where he had been held
beginning September 13, 2011. Order of Detention
(ECF No. 33 - No. 1:11-cr-00185-JAW); Final Compl.
¶ 3; Majority DSMF ¶¶ 1-2; County DSMF ¶
17; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 1; Allen DSMF Intro. On
January 25, 2012, Mr. Stile's criminal defense counsel
moved to enforce the order of detention, asserting that Mr.
Stile had been denied the ability to communicate with counsel
by phone or written correspondence. Mot. to Enforce Order
of Detention (ECF No. 45). Mr. Stile's counsel asked
that the Court order Mr. Stile moved to another facility.
Id. at 2.
affidavit in support of the motion, Mr. Stile asserted that
he suffered from degenerative disc disease, with a medical
history of two discectomies and one laminectomy, and that his
spinal condition was aggravated on December 20, 2011 when
corrections officers separated Mr. Stile and another inmate
during an altercation in which Mr. Stile attacked the other
inmate. Id. Attach. Decl. of James
Stile I. ¶¶ 3-4; Majority DSMF ¶¶
6-7. Mr. Stile further stated that he was placed in
administrative segregation due to the altercation with the
prisoner, and that he began refusing his meals on December
26, 2011 because he did not feel safe given that an officer
who served his meal tray was a relative of the inmate with
whom Mr. Stile fought. Id. Attach. Decl. of
James Stile I. ¶¶ 4, 6.
Extractions at Samoset County Jail
Stile was initially classified as a medium security inmate on
September 16, 2011, and this classification remained in
effect on October 3, 2011 and December 13, 2011. Majority
DSMF ¶ 5; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 1; Allen DSMF
Intro. On December 20, 2011, Mr. Stile was involved in an
altercation with another inmate, Ernest Almeida, which
resulted in Mr. Stile being taken to the Special Management
Unit. Final Compl. ¶ 10; Majority DMSF
¶¶ 6, 8; County DSMF ¶ 20; Plourd/Jacques DSMF
¶ 1; Allen DSMF Intro. Inmate Almeida is a relative of
Defendant Corrections Officer Almeida. Final Compl.
¶ 11. The Special Management Unit is located in Apod and
is where inmates on administrative segregation and
disciplinary segregation are housed, in addition to inmates
classified as maximum security. Majority DMSF ¶ 8;
County DSMF ¶ 18; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 1; Allen
DSMF Intro. A decision to return an inmate from A-Pod to
general population is based on the behavior and statements of
the inmate while in the unit and/or or recommendations by
medical staff. County DSMF ¶ 21. Either the jail
administrator or the assistant jail administrator would make
this decision, after consulting with medical and A-Pod staff.
Id. ¶ 22. Mr. Stile was subjected to numerous
strip searches while at Somerset County Jail. Final
Compl. ¶ 12.
next day, on December 21, 2011, Mr. Stile's
classification was changed to maximum security. Majority DMSF
¶ 9; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 1; Allen DSMF Intro. For
about thirty-nine days, Mr. Stile did not eat his meals for
fear that they were being tampered with and he experienced
mental and physical issues. Final Compl. ¶ 14.
Mr. Stile previously observed Defendants Almedia and Meunier
spit in his food tray before handing him the tray.
Id. ¶ 13. Mr. Stile also heard Defendant
Meunier state that there would be shards of glass in his
food. Id. ¶ 13. When Mr. Stile
first refused his meals, he was also reclassified as an
inmate requiring a suicide watch, and was required to visit
the medical department daily (later twice daily or once per
shift) so that his “vitals” could be
monitored. Majority DSMF ¶¶ 12, 620-22;
County DSMF ¶ 9, Ex. I; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 1;
Allen DSMF Intro.
first of several extractions occurred on December 26,
2011. On the morning of December 26, Mr. Stile
refused an order to relinquish his bedding and blankets.
Final Compl. ¶ 15; Majority DSMF ¶
252. Mr. Stile says when he refused, he was
sprayed with a chemical agent. Final Compl. ¶
15. Mr. Stile then unsuccessfully tried to set off the
sprinklers. Majority DSMF ¶ 254. The CERT Team was
assembled to remove Mr. Stile from his cell to give him
medical treatment and move him to another cell. Id.
¶ 256. Before entering his cell, Defendant Bugbee asked
Mr. Stile again if he wanted to cuff up; Mr. Stile refused.
Id. ¶ 261. Mr. Stile had pinned his mattress up
against his cell door. Id. ¶ 260. Upon entering
the cell, Mr. Stile was shocked with an electric shield at
various points. Id. ¶ 263-64; Final
Compl. ¶ 15. Mr. Stile was given the clothes he
was wearing previously when the chemical agent was deployed.
Final Compl. ¶ 15. A nurse came to examine
Mr. Stile and offer treatment, but he did not respond to her.
Id. ¶ 267. Mr. Stile walked on his own power to
a chair in the dayroom in A-pod. Id. ¶ 266. The
video of the extraction ends with a visual strip search.
Id. ¶ 268. The video of that extraction reflects
that Mr. Stile walked on that date, both before and after the
extraction. Majority DSMF ¶ 266.
next extraction occurred on December 31, 2011. Id.
¶ 269. Mr. Stile refused to come to the door and cuff
up. Id.; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 9. The electric
shield was used to contain Mr. Stile but not deployed.
Majority DSMF ¶ 273; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 12.
Defendant Plourd, without a prior verbal warning, used the
handheld electronic device after Mr. Stile refused several
orders to stand up. Majority DSMF ¶ 275-76;
Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶¶ 10-11. Mr. Stile was
placed in handcuffs and leg irons and was taken first to the
medical department and then to be weighed. Majority DSMF
¶ 269, 274; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 9. The Defendants
carried Mr. Stile to the medical department. Majority DSMF
¶ 272; Video Ex. 2. Upon Mr. Stile's arrival at
medical, a nurse evaluated him. Id. ¶ 278.
While in medical, Mr. Stile told the officers, “You
hurt me Monday, ” evidently a reference to the December
26, 2011 extraction.
January 1, 2012, Mr. Stile was extracted from his cell, taken
to the medical department, and then to the laundry room to be
weighed by Defendants Herrera, Libby, Lightbody, and Soares
with the supervision of Defendant Munn. Id.
¶¶ 279-282. Similar extractions occurred on January
4 and 5, 2012 by different groups of corrections officers.
Id. ¶¶ 285, 287, 293, 295, 304, 306, Video
Exs. 3, 4 and 35. On these dates, Mr. Stile was transported
from the medical department to the laundry room and from the
laundry room to his cell in a wheelchair. Id.
¶¶ 290, 301, 319.
extractions occurred on January 5. Id. ¶¶
292, 301, 303. In each instance, Defendants first offered Mr.
Stile the option to present himself at the door to be
handcuffed before the officers entered, but Mr. Stile
continued to deny the ability to walk to the door.
Id. ¶¶ 298, 309. In the first instance,
Defendant Plourd deployed the handheld electronic device
without a prior verbal warning. Id. ¶¶
298-99; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶¶ 13-15. If
unsuccessful in getting Mr. Stile to walk, the supervising
officer would tell the present corrections officers to carry
him out. Final Compl. ¶ 20.
second instance, Mr. Stile was handcuffed and shackled while
he was lying down on the floor, and was lifted to a kneeling
position. Majority DSMF ¶¶ 307-08; Plourd/Jacques
DSMF ¶¶ 51-52. Mr. Stile was ordered to stand
several times, but he refused, and was told he would be
shocked if continued to refuse to stand. Majority DSMF
¶¶ 309-11; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶¶ 53-54.
Defendant Fails said he would give Mr. Stile three warnings,
and if he failed to stand by the third warning, then
Defendant Fails would deploy an electronic device. Final
Compl. ¶ 19; Majority DSMF ¶¶ 309-11,
Video Ex. 35. Defendant Fails eventually deployed the
handheld electronic device twice to Mr. Stile's upper
right thigh, and after Mr. Stile continued to refuse to
stand, Defendant Fails deployed the device once more.
Majority DSMF ¶¶ 313-14; Plourd/Jacques DSMF
extraction occurred on each day thereafter until January
11. Majority DSMF ¶¶ 323, 327,
332, 337, 343, 350. On January 10, Mr. Stile was placed into
the shower in his restraint chair because he had not showered
in several days. Id. ¶ 355; Plourd/Jacques DSMF
¶ 26. The method in which Mr. Stile was placed in and
taken out of the restraint chair caused him pain because
correction officers would force his face downwards towards
his knees. Final Compl. ¶ 21. He was also hurt
when Defendants used the arm bar maneuver. Id. When
placed in the turtle suit, Mr. Stile's genitals were
partially exposed to female staff Id. ¶ 24.
Mr. Stile was placed in the shower, he spit at Defendant
Plourd and hit him in the right arm. Majority DSMF ¶
356; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 28. However, on one occasion
Defendants Hayden and Rivard took Mr. Stile in a standard
wheelchair without incident. Final Compl. ¶ 30.
January 10 through January 19, there were typically two
extractions each day. Majority DSMF ¶¶ 350, 359,
366, 372, 379, 386, 393, 400, 406, 416, 425, 433, 439, 446,
455, 462, 469, 476, 483, 490. There was one extraction on
January 20 (Id. ¶ 496), two on January 21
(Id. ¶¶ 503, 510), three on January 22
(Id. ¶¶ 517, 524, 531), and two on January
23. Id. ¶¶ 538, 546. From January 24
through January 29, there was one extraction each day.
Id. ¶¶ 555, 564, 572, 579, 586,
Other Issues at Somerset County Jail
Campbell told other correction officers that Mr. Stile must
walk on his own accord to be allowed to use the telephone.
Final Compl. ¶ 16. Defendant Campbell also
turned away Mr. Stile's attorney and said he must walk on
his accord to see his attorney. Id. Mr. Stile
requested access to clergy and to attend religious services.
Id. ¶ 34. While in SMU, Mr. Stile was not
allowed his eyeglasses, which prevented him from reading
disciplinary papers or any newspapers. Id. ¶
Stile asked Defendant Libby to make an anonymous phone call
to his attorney or the press and divulge the abuses he was
suffering. Id. ¶ 20. In September of 2012, Mr.
Stile was not given his medication for about six
days. Id. ¶ 36. During a
transport from Somerset County Jail to Cumberland County
Jail, Defendants Andrews and Kline lost more than 1, 000
pages of Mr. Stile's legal documents, pertaining to his
civil and legal cases as well as to his filed grievances with
the Somerset County Jail. Id. ¶
Allen was the Somerset County Jail administrator from
September 2011 to February 2013. Allen DSMF ¶ 1. During
Mr. Stile's time at Somerset County Jail, Defendant Allen
had no direct contact with Mr. Stile, meaning he had no
involvement in Mr. Stile's extractions, conducted no
strip searches, did not place Mr. Stile in a restraint chair,
conducted no searches of his cell, and was not involved in
Mr. Stile's disciplinary hearings or access to his
attorney. Id. ¶¶ 2-15. Defendant Allen was
not aware of any reason for Mr. Stile to be extracted except
to check his health status. Id. ¶ 16. Defendant
Allen also did not have any advanced knowledge of the
deployment of the electronic shield, the handheld electronic
device, or OC spray with regard to Mr. Stile, and was not
aware of any use of these instruments contrary to jail
policies. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Similarly,
Defendant Allen was not aware of corrections officers ever
engaging in the various other actions complained of Mr.
Stile's Complaint in a manner contrary to jail policies
or for any reason not justified by jail policies or
legitimate penological considerations. Id.
¶¶ 19-23, 26-28, 30.
Barry Delong was the Sheriff of Somerset County while Mr.
Stile was at the Somerset County Jail. County DSMF ¶ 1.
Defendant Delong retired on December 31, 2014, and at that
time, neither Somerset County nor Somerset County Jail had
received notice of any state tort claims against the County,
Defendant Delong, or any other county employees. Id.
¶ 2. During Defendant Delong's tenure, however,
there were meetings every day at shift changes in which jail
employees exchanged information regarding inmates'
issues, including their health or medical needs. Id.
¶ 15. Once a week there was a meeting of administrative
staff and supervisors called “Grand Rounds” to
discuss all inmate issues, including any need to address
inmates' medical needs with the medical staff.
Id. ¶ 16.
Defendant DeLong had overall responsibility for the jail, the
day-to-day were handled by the jail administrator.
Id. ¶ 23. Defendant DeLong never had any
personal contact with Mr. Stile during his incarceration.
Id. ¶ 25. Defendant Delong did not witness or
have any personal knowledge of any cell extractions of Mr.
Stile, including any alleged force used against him during
the extractions. Id. ¶ 26. Defendant Delong had
no knowledge of any grievances or appeals filed by Mr. Stile.
Id. ¶ 28. While Mr. Stile was incarcerated at
Somerset County Jail, Defendant DeLong had not been made
aware of prior claims of any widespread problems regarding
the use of excessive force against inmates, inappropriate use
of approved weapons, denial of medical care, denial of access
to attorneys, strip searching beyond that authorized by the
jail's policies, inappropriate searches of inmates'
cells, inappropriate seizure of inmates' legal papers,
denial of access to religious services, denial of due process
in conjunction with disciplinary hearings, deficiencies in
training or supervision of jail employees, or jail
employees' adherence to policies governing these matters.
Id. ¶ 44.
October 12, 2011, Defendant Garling conducted two
disciplinary hearings concerning Mr. Stile, during which he
was present for both hearings. Majority DSMF ¶ 100. Mr.
Stile appealed one of these hearings. Id. ¶
619. On January 12, 2012, Defendant Garling conducted a
disciplinary hearing regarding Mr. Stile and when he went to
Mr. Stile's cell door and asked Mr. Stile if he wanted to
be present for the hearing, Mr. Stile refused. Id.
January 19, 2012, Lt. Jacques conducted a disciplinary
hearing, 12-48, regarding Mr. Stile; Mr. Stile refused to be
present for this hearing, and Mr. Stile did not appeal the
hearing results. Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 72. On May 23,
2013, Defendant Jacques conducted three disciplinary
hearings, 13-459-DI, 13-460-DI and 13-464-DI, regarding Mr.
Stile; Mr. Stile was not present because he was not in the
facility, and he did not appeal the results of those
hearings. Id. ¶ 73.
September 26, 2012, Defendant Plourd conducted two
disciplinary hearings, 12-781-DI and 12-776-DI, regarding Mr.
Stile; Mr. Stile was not present because he was not in the
facility. Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 31. Mr. Stile
appealed these two hearings around April 2013. Majority DSMF
¶ 619; Plourd/Jacques ¶ 33. The disciplinary
hearings were held without Mr. Stile being present, and so he
was unable to present his own case. Final Compl.
¶ 33. In his absence at one of the hearings, he was
assessed penalties of disciplinary segregation in SMU and
monetary fines over $500, which were deducted from his inmate
Somerset County Jail Policies
times relevant to Mr. Stile's claims, Somerset County
Jail had policies in effect concerning responding to various
emergencies. County DSMF ¶9, Exs. G-J. Somerset County
Jail also had policies in effect at the time of Mr.
Stile's claims pertaining to use of force, administrative
and disciplinary segregation, classification of prisoners,
cell extractions, and the use of restraints. Id.
¶ 10. Somerset County Jail employed a full
time training officer and numerous academy certified
instructors to ensure that all jail employees were trained
regarding all SCJ policies and procedures. Id.
inmates are given a copy of the Inmate Handbook which
describes the grievance procedure and also advises them that
the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires they exhaust all
administrative remedies before they can file suit alleging
violations of federal law. Id. ¶ 29. Under the
jail's grievance policy, an inmate must first file a
Level 1 grievance. Majority DSMF ¶ 600; Id.
¶ 30. If an inmate is not satisfied with the response to
a Level 1 grievance, the inmate may file a Level 2 grievance;
the final step in the grievance procedure is to appeal to the
Maine Department of Corrections for external review. Majority
DSMF ¶¶ 601-02; County DSMF ¶ 31. Mr. Stile
only filed one Level 2 grievance at the Jail, which was
received by the Jail on October 17, 2011, and concerned
problems with medical staff. Majority DSMF ¶ 603; County
DSMF ¶ 36. Mr. Stile only filed one grievance with the
Maine Department of Corrections, dated May 8, 2014,
concerning alleged assaults and batteries during December
2011 and January 2012. Majority DSMF ¶ 605; County DSMF
County Jail policy 10.1, entitled “Inmate
Discipline”, implements an inmate discipline system to
hold inmates accountable for misconduct and to encourage
acceptable behavior; policy 10.1 provides a list of
disciplinary penalties that can be imposed upon inmates for
the violation of a Somerset County Jail policies. County DSMF
¶ 32. Under this policy, an inmate may appeal the
decision of a disciplinary hearing officer to the jail
administrator within ten days of the disciplinary hearing.
Id. ¶ 33. Mr. Stile appealed only three
disciplinary hearings while at Somerset County Jail. Majority
DSMF ¶ 619; Id. ¶ 35.
County Jail policy 12.16 is applicable to inmates with
disabilities and requires inmates to file a complaint with
medical staff regarding any service issues. County DSMF
¶ 39. Under this policy, an inmate is required to submit
a brief written description of the complaint and submit it to
any staff member. Id. ¶ 40. The medical staff
reviews the complaint and provides a written reply within
five business days with copies of the complaint and the reply
forwarded to the medical director. Id. ¶ 41.
Jail also has policies governing searches, including strip
searches, and provides the conditions that must be present
for an inmate to be subject to a strip search. Id.
¶ 42. Under these policies, an inmate may be subject to
a strip search following a contact visit and there is no
exception provided under the Policy for when an inmate meets
with his or her attorney. Id. ¶ 43.
County has liability coverage on its behalf and on behalf of
its employees through the Maine County Commissioners
Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool, a self-insured
governmental risk pool, from 2011 to 2013. County DSMF
¶¶ 3, 5. The Maine County Commissioners
Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool provides
coverage to the County for claims arising under state tort
law only if the entity or its employees did not enjoy
immunity under state law. Id. ¶ 4.
SUMMARY OF THEMOTIONS
Mr. Stile's ...