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.

Stile v. Somerset County

United States District Court, D. Maine

September 28, 2018

JAMES STILE, Plaintiff,
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S RELATED MOTIONS

          JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In this action, James Stile alleges that while he was a pretrial detainee at the Somerset County Jail, Defendants deprived him of several constitutionally-guaranteed rights, [1] as well as his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

         Before 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);[2]
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).

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On July 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.

         On 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).

         On 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).

         On June 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 Reply).

         On July 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).

         On July 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 Reply).

         On July 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).

         Also 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).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Summary Judgment Standard[3]

         “The 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, 323-24 (1986).

         B. Local Rules 7(b) and 56 and Pro Se Prisoner Litigants

         As the 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.

         The 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 Cir. 1989)).

         At the 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).

         In this 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.

         On 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.[4] 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).

         As the 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.

         Nevertheless, 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)).

         III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

         A. The Criminal Case

         In 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 -No. 1:11-cr-00185-JAW).

         Mr. 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).[5] Mr. Stile's counsel asked that the Court order Mr. Stile moved to another facility. Id. at 2.

         In an 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.[6] 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.

         B. Extractions at Samoset County Jail[7]

         Mr. 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.

         The 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.[8] 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.[9] Majority DSMF ¶¶ 12, 620-22; County DSMF ¶ 9, Ex. I; Plourd/Jacques DSMF ¶ 1; Allen DSMF Intro.

         The first of several extractions occurred on December 26, 2011.[10] On the morning of December 26, Mr. Stile refused an order to relinquish his bedding and blankets. Final Compl. ¶ 15; Majority DSMF ¶ 252.[11] 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.[12] Mr. Stile was given the clothes he was wearing previously when the chemical agent was deployed. Final Compl. ¶ 15.[13] 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.[14] The video of that extraction reflects that Mr. Stile walked on that date, both before and after the extraction. Majority DSMF ¶ 266.[15]

         The 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.[16] 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.[17] 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.[18]

         On 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.

         Two 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.[19]

         In the 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 ¶¶ 56-57.

         One extraction occurred on each day thereafter until January 11.[20] 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[21] Id. ¶ 24.

         When 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.

         From 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.[22] 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, 592.[23]

         C. Other Issues at Somerset County Jail

         Defendant 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. ¶ 35.

         Mr. 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.[24] 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. ¶ 39.[25]

         D. David Allen

         Defendant 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.[26]

         E. Barry Delong

         Defendant 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.

         While Defendant DeLong had overall responsibility for the jail, the day-to-day were handled by the jail administrator. Id. ¶ 23.[27] 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.

         F. Disciplinary Hearings

         On 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. ¶ 101.

         On 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.[28] Id. ¶ 73.

         On 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.[29] 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 account. Id.

         G. Somerset County Jail Policies

         At all 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.[30] 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. ¶ 12.[31]

         All 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 ¶ 37.

         Somerset 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.[32]

         Somerset 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.

         The 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.

         H. Insurance Coverage

         Somerset 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.[33] 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.

         IV. SUMMARY OF THEMOTIONS

         A. Mr. Stile's ...


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.