United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Stile has asserted various constitutional violations and
state tort claims against the Defendants. Except for one
claim against three individual Defendants, Mr. Stile failed
to create a genuine issue of material fact and therefore the
Court denies in part and grants in part Defendants'
motions for summary judgment.
October 14, 2014, Mr. Stile filed a civil complaint against
Cumberland County, the Cumberland County Sheriff, and twenty
Cumberland County corrections officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated his
constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee.
Compl. (ECF No. 1). Since then, Mr. Stile filed a
number of unorthodox filings, which has complicated this
September 28, 2017, Mr. Stile filed a motion to stay of
proceedings as concerns motions for summary judgment in both
this case and another case before this Court,
1-13-cv-00248-JAW. Mot. to Stay Proceedings as Concerns
Mots. for Summ. J. at 1 (ECF No. 201 -
2:14-cv-00406-JAW); (ECF No. 450 - 1-13-cv-00248-JAW)
(Mot. to Stay). On October 17, 2017, Defendants
filed a response in opposition to his motion to stay.
Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Stay Proceedings as
Concerns Mots. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 207) (Opp'n
to Mot. to Stay). On November 11, 2017, the Court denied
Mr. Stile's motion to stay. Order (ECF No. 211).
October 3, 2017, Defendants requested leave to file a
memorandum of law in excess of page limit set forth in Local
Rule 7(e). Defs.' Mot. for Leave to File Mem. of Law
in Excess of Page Limits (ECF No. 202) (Mot. for
Leave.) The Court granted Defendants' motion the
same day. Order (ECF No. 203). On October 6, 2017,
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and
motion for summary judgment together with a statement of
material facts. Mot. for J. on Pleadings and Mot. for
Summ. J. (ECF No. 204) (Defs.'
Mots.); Defs.' Statement of Material
Facts (ECF No. 205) (DSMF).
Stile's responses were initially due by October 27, 2017;
however, on February 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge allowed
an extension until March 23, 2018, for Mr. Stile's to
file his response to Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings and motion for summary judgment. Procedural
Order at 1 (ECF No. 221). On March 5, 2018, Mr. Stile
moved to extend time to respond to Defendants' motions
alongside various 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 Mr.
Stile's response deadline to June 15, 2018 but denied his
motion in all other respects. 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).
Stile objected to the Magistrate Judge's Order on June
11, 2018, and the Defendants responded on June 22, 2018.
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); Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Obj. to
Magistrate's Decision (ECF No. 237). The Court
overruled Mr. Stile's objection on July 13, 2018.
Order on Objection to Order on Mot. to Extend Time
(ECF No. 241). In doing so, the Court stated, “that it
will immediately begin . . . reviewing the Defendants'
dispositive motions . . . . If Mr. Stile is able to file a
response to those motions before the Court issues the order,
the Court will consider his responses and will allow the
Defendants fourteen days to reply . . . .” Id.
Defendants' Motion for Summary
may grant summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 if the record demonstrates 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). “A fact is material when it has potential of
changing a case's outcome.” Doe v. Trustees of
Boston Coll., 892 F.3d 67, 79 (1st Cir. 2018). There is
a genuine dispute “when the evidence about the fact is
such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor
of the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted) (quoting Rivera-Muriente v.
Agosto-Alicea, 959 F.2d 349, 352 (1st Cir. 1992)). If
the Court finds that “there is a genuine dispute of a
material fact, that dispute would need to be resolved by a
trier of fact.” Id. (alteration in original)
(quoting Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.
Court must examine the record evidence “in the light
most favorable to [the nonmovant], and [must draw] all
reasonable inferences in . . . favor [of the nonmoving
party].” Foley v. Town of Randolf, 598 F.3d 1,
5 (1st Cir. 2010). But a movant may “demonstrate an
absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's
case.” Murray v. Warren Pumps, LLC, 821 F.3d
77, 83 (1st Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)).
The nonmovant, in turn, “must adduce specific facts
showing that a trier of fact reasonably could find in his
favor.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)).
Local Rule 56 of the District of Maine
se litigant is not “absolved from compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” F.D.I.C. v.
Anchor Props., 13 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting
United States v. Heller, 957 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir.
1992)). A pro se litigant must also comply with a district
court's procedural rules.” See Ruiz Rivera v.
Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 27 -28 & n.2 (1st Cir. 2000).
District of Maine Local Rule 56(c) provides, in relevant
part, 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) states that facts shall be
deemed admitted if not properly controverted. A
non-movant's failure to properly respond with his or her
own opposing statement of material facts deems movant's
statement of material facts, if properly supported by
references to the summary judgment record, as admitted.
See Lawson v. Campbell, No. CIV. 09-226-P-H, 2010 WL
2803372, at *1 (D. Me. July 15, 2010) (citing
Cosme-Rosado v. Serrano-Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 42, 45
(1st Cir. 2004)). However, a non-movant's failure
“to respond does not automatically entitle the movant
to summary judgment.” Jackson v. Town of
Waldoboro, 751 F.Supp.2d 263, 265 (D. Me. 2010) (citing
Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st
Cir. 2003)). The movant must show that it has “met its
burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to
summary judgment as a matter of law.” Cordero-Soto
v. Island Fin., Inc., 418 F.3d 114, 118 (1st Cir. 2005)
(quoting Lopez v. Corporación Azucarera de
P.R., 938 F.2d 1510, 1516 (1st Cir. 1991)).
summary judgment stage, a verified complaint is treated as an
affidavit equivalent. Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d
1259, 1262 (1st Cir. 1991); Demmons v. Tritch, 484
F.Supp.2d 177, 182 (D. Me. 2007). This District has generally
considered prisoner affidavits even if they are noncompliant
with Local Rule 56. See e.g., Clarke v.
Blais, 473 F.Supp.2d 124 (D. Me. 2007). Mr. Stile's
Complaint in this case is notarized and contains only the
words “sworn to before me” above the notary's
stamp. The Court considers this sufficient under the standard
of a verified complaint and thus, treats it as an affidavit
equivalent. Nevertheless, the Court will consider only
specific facts outlined in Mr. Stile's Complaint, not
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 (1st
Cir. Apr. 3, 1991) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil
STATEMENT OF FACTS
October 30, 2015, Mr. Stile pleaded guilty to a robbery
charge and was sentenced on May 29, 2015. DSMF ¶
Before pleading guilty, Mr. Stile was a pretrial inmate
incarcerated at the Cumberland County Jail beginning February
1, 2012. Id. ¶ 1; Pl.'s Compl.
¶ 3. Mr. Stile remained at the Cumberland
County Jail, with the exception of a few days when he was
transported to Penobscot County and Somerset County, until
January 15, 2013. DSMF ¶¶ 2, 3; Compl.
¶ 3. The individual Defendants are all employed by
Cumberland County Jail. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 8;
Answer ¶¶ 4, 8. Defendant Joyce has the
overall responsibility for the running of Cumberland County
Jail and its corrections officers. Compl. ¶ 8;
DMSF Att. 24, Aff. of Kevin Joyce ¶ 2.
Disciplinary Hearings at Cumberland County Jail
November 21, 2012, Corrections Officers Bryan Leblanc,
Christopher Bisson and Lieutenant George
Panenka were part of a disciplinary board that
conducted five disciplinary hearings concerning Mr. Stile.
Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14; DSMF ¶
Even though he demonstrated a desire to attend the hearing,
Mr. Stile was denied the right to attend.
Compl. ¶ 14.
Cumberland County Jail's Policies for Disciplinary
Cumberland County Sheriff's Office Corrections Division
Policy and Procedure Manual contains the official policies
and procedures of the Cumberland County Jail. DSMF ¶
105. Staff is required to review and to be knowledgeable and
conversant with the policies in the manual. Id.
Cumberland County Jail Policies and Procedures D-101 entitled
“Categories of Inmate Classification Assignments,
” D-130 entitled “Inmate Reclassification
Procedures, ” D-131 entitled “Appeal of Inmate
Classification Assignments, ” D-243 “Special
Management Inmates, “ F-200 entitled “Inmate
Discipline, ” F-340 entitled “Library Services,
” and F-140 “Inmate Telephone System, “ are
some of the official policies and procedures of the
Cumberland County Jail regarding inmate services and rights
in effect on the date of the incidents in this lawsuit.
Id. ¶ 106. Policy F-200 sets forth inmates'
procedural due process rights in disciplinary hearings, which
provides, among other things, for the right to:
A. Receive written notice of the alleged violation(s) within
24 hours of completing the report.
B. The right to a fair and impartial hearing.
C. The right to be represented by a fellow inmate and/or
staff member upon request . . . .
E. The right to be present at the hearing unless waived by
the accused inmate in writing, this right or his/her behavior
justifies his/her absence or removal.
F. The right to enter a statement of their version of the
G. The right to call witnesses to the incident and other
relevant witnesses and present evidence . . . .
Id. ¶ 111.
first hearing concerned charges against Mr. Stile based on
minor violations 11, 12, and 21 and a major violation B-21.
Compl. ¶ 16; DSMF ¶ 9. On November 15,
2012, Mr. Stile flushed newspaper and styrofoam food trays
down his toilet which caused the toilet water to back up and
required maintenance to unclog the toilet. DSMF
¶ 10. On the same day, corrections officer
Keith Logan gave Mr. Stile notice that this incident had been
referred to the Disciplinary Board along with a copy of the
incident report and a copy of the Disciplinary Board Cover
Sheet, which advised him of his procedural rights at the
hearing. Id. ¶ 11. On November 16, 2012,
Correctional Officer Sampson and Defendant Dubois conducted a
prehearing review with Mr. Stile about the incident.
Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Stile stated that flushing his
tray was a form of protest because corrections officers had
threatened to mess with his food. Id. Mr. Stile was
advised that the disciplinary board hearing would be on
November 21, 2012, and he stated that he did not plan to call
any witnesses. Id. Ultimately, Mr. Stile was found
guilty and was given seven days disciplinary segregation as a
sanction. Id. ¶ 13.
second hearing concerned charges against Mr. Stile based on
an incident on November 15, 2012, a major violation B-21.
Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Stile was accused of throwing his
inhaler on the floor and stomping on it until it was in
pieces. Id. On November 15, 2012, Corrections
Officer Tyrone Leslie gave Mr. Stile notice that this
incident had been referred to the Disciplinary Board along
with a copy of the incident report and a copy of the
Disciplinary Board Cover Sheet advising him of his procedural
rights at the hearing. Id. ¶ 16. On November
18, 2012, Defendant Dubois conducted a prehearing review with
Mr. Stile, which lasted about thirty minutes. Compl.
¶ 11; DSMF ¶ 17. Mr. Stile stated that the
inhalers were empty which made it difficult for him to
breathe as he suffers from emphysema, and that he broke it
open to illustrate that it was empty. Compl. ¶
11. Mr. Stile also stated that he wanted to call as a witness
a medical technician whose last name is Vattanasiu.
Id.; DSMF ¶ 17. Mr. Stile was advised that the
disciplinary board hearing would be on November 21, 2012.
DSMF ¶ 17. Mr. Stile was subsequently found guilty and
was given fourteen days disciplinary segregation as a
sanction. Id. ¶ 18.
Stile's third hearing centered on charges based on an
incident from November 16, 2012, minor rule violations 6, 11,
and 20 and major violations B-11 and B-21. Compl.
¶ 16; Id. ¶ 19. These charges concerned an
incident in which Mr. Stile intentionally flooded his cell.
DSMF ¶ 20. That same day, Corrections Officer Suzanne
DelRossi gave Mr. Stile notice that this incident had been
referred to the Disciplinary Board along with a copy of the
incident report and a copy of the Disciplinary Board Cover
Sheet which advised him of his procedural rights at the
hearing. Id. ¶ 21. The next day, Defendant
Dubois conducted a pre-hearing review with Mr. Stile.
Id. ¶ 22. Mr. Stile admitted that he “did
it” and stated that he did not plan to call any
witnesses. Id. He was advised that the disciplinary
board hearing would be held on November 21, 2012, at which he
was found guilty and was given sixteen days disciplinary
segregation as a sanction. Id. ¶¶ 22-23.
fourth hearing considered charges against Mr. Stile based on
an incident from November 16, 2012, minor rule violations 7,
11, 20, and 29 and major violations B-1, B-10, B-11 and B-21.
Compl. ¶ 16; Id. ¶ 24. Mr. Stile
was accused of repeatedly and unnecessarily calling
subcontrol and ripping his styrofoam tray and stuffing it in
the toilet, defecating on the floor and smearing feces in his
cell, and using vulgar language toward officers. DSMF
¶ 25. On November 16, 2012, Corrections Officer
Ryan Finch placed a copy of the incident report and a copy of
the Disciplinary Board Cover Sheet, advising Mr. Stile of his
hearing procedural rights in Mr. Stile's folder for when
he returned from intake. Id. ¶ 26. On November
17, 2012, Defendant Dubois conducted a prehearing review with
Mr. Stile. Id. ¶ 27. Mr. Stile stated that he
called subcontrol to get his property and for toilet paper,
and that he did not plan to call any witnesses at the
hearing, which he was advised would be on November 21, 2012.
Id. Ultimately, Mr. Stile was found guilty and was
given twenty days disciplinary segregation as a sanction.
Id. ¶ 28.
fifth hearing concerned charges against Mr. Stile based on an
incident from November 16, 2012, minor rule violations 2, 7,
11, 12, and 20 and major violations B-1 and B-21.
Compl. ¶ 16; Id. ¶ 29. Mr. Stile
was accused of making threats toward Corrections Officer
Michael Darling, wiping feces on the walls, refusing to
comply with orders, and resisting officers. DSMF ¶ 30.
The same day, Defendant Darling placed a copy of the incident
report along with a copy of the Disciplinary Board Cover
Sheet, which outlined Mr. Stile's procedural rights at
the hearing, in Mr. Stile's folder for him when he
returned from intake. Id. ¶ 31. On November 17,
2012, Defendant Dubois conducted a prehearing review with Mr.
Stile about the incident. Id. ¶ 32. During this
review, Mr. Stile stated that he had been asking for toilet
paper for a half-hour and, as a protest, he wiped feces.
Id. He denied pulling away from the corrections
officer and stated that he planned to call Corrections
Officer Morrison as a witness; he was advised that the
disciplinary board would be on November 21, 2012.
Id. Mr. Stile was found guilty and was given
twenty-five days disciplinary segregation as a sanction.
Id. ¶ 33.
Aftermath of Disciplinary Hearings
Stile was not present at any of the five disciplinary
hearings held on November 21, 2012, and the disciplinary
board made its decision based on the incident reports and did
not hear from any witnesses. Id. ¶
34. Mr. Stile appealed the five disciplinary
hearing decisions and Captain Steve Butts denied those
appeals on December 3, 2012. Id. ¶ 35. Mr.
Stile did not serve any of the disciplinary segregation that
he was assessed at the five disciplinary hearings.
Id. ¶ 36.However, while incarcerated at the
Cumberland County Jail, Mr. Stile received disciplinary
segregation based on discipline he received while he was
incarcerated at the Somerset County Jail. Id. ¶
Somerset County Jail
Somerset County Jail's Policies
Somerset County, an inmate may appeal the decision of a
disciplinary hearing officer to the jail administrator within
ten days of the disciplinary hearing, and to appeal a
disciplinary hearing decision, the inmate submits an Appeal
of Disciplinary Hearing Decision form to correction officer
Gary Crafts for the Jail Administrator or designee to answer.
Id. ¶ 41. The decision of the jail
administrator is final and cannot be appealed. Id.
Previous Discipline at Somerset County Jail
Stile received a total of thirty-seven days of disciplinary
segregation for various incidents committed in December 2011
while he was at Somerset County Jail. Id. ¶ 38.
Mr. Stile served these days of segregation discipline at
Cumberland County Jail beginning November 24, 2012.
Id. Mr. Stile previously had three hearings for four
separate incidents at the Somerset County Jail from December
2011 to January 2012. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. Mr.
Stile was found guilty at all three hearings and did not
appeal any of these decisions. Id. On September 16,
2012, Defendant Slocum contacted Somerset County Jail and,
based on that request, the Somerset County Jail faxed over
Mr. Stile's previous disciplinary findings while
incarcerated there. Compl. ¶ 15.
November 29, 2012 Incident
November 29, 2012, Corrections Officer Trevor Purinton was
working in maximum security when he began to let inmates out
of their cells for their allotted time between 0830 and 0930
hours. DSMF ¶ 51. Mr. Stile was housed in an area with
three cells around one day room and corrections officers let
out inmates in the day room at the same time; however, if any
inmate did not want to come out, he could close his cell
door. Id. ¶¶ 53-54. Defendant
Purinton was whispering beforehand with Mr. Lester.
Compl. ¶ 36. Defendant Purinton called
subcontrol to have them open Mr. Stile's cell door.
Id.; DSMF ¶ 52. Mr. Stile was housed in a cell
that had a sliding door and could be opened from subcontrol.
DSMF ¶ 60. Defendant Purinton went to the next cell door
and manually keyed open the door for inmate Lester.
Compl. ¶ 36; Id. ¶ 52. Unlike Mr.
Stile's cell, Mr. Lester's cell needed to be opened
with a key. DSMF ¶ 61. Defendant Purinton exited the day
room and walked to the next day room to begin unlocking cells
there. Id. ¶ 55.
he was assaulted by Mr. Lester, Mr. Stile had not informed
correctional officers that he thought Mr. Lester or other
inmates would assault him. Id. ¶ 56. Nor had
Mr. Stile told correctional officers that he felt threatened
by Mr. Lester or any inmates. Id. ¶ 57. Mr.
Stile also did not request to be placed in protective
custody. Id. ¶ 58. Cumberland County Jail
Policy D-243 outlines the procedures for protective custody.
Id. ¶ 106A. If an inmate in maximum security
requests protective custody or tells an officer he feels
threatened, corrections officers will not let the inmate into
the dayroom at the same time as other inmates. Id.
Lester went into Mr. Stile's cell, got on top of Mr.
Stile, and hit him with his hands. Id. ¶ 63. As
soon as corrections officers became aware of this occurrence,
they entered Mr. Stile's cell, ordered Mr. Lester to
stop, and moved him away from Mr. Stile. Id. ¶
64. Defendant Purinton did not request, discuss or make a
deal with Mr. Lester to assault Mr. Stile. Id.
¶ 62. Medical personnel were notified and arrived
shortly after, treated Mr. Stile, and escorted him to the
medical department in a wheelchair. Id. ¶ 65.
When the assault occurred, Defendant Young was the supervisor
in A-pod but was not present at the time and did not witness
the assault. Id. ¶¶ 66-67. Defendant Logan
was assigned to maximum security when the assault occurred
but did not witness the assault. Id. ¶¶
Transition to Maximum Security
Reclassification to Maximum Security Policy
County Jail's Policy D-130 specifies the procedures for
reclassifying an inmate to a higher classification
assignment, including in emergency situations, and requires
that notice of the change be given to the inmate.
Id. ¶ 107. If an inmate is reclassified on an
emergency basis, the decision will be reviewed by the
Classification Committee at its next meeting. Id.
¶ 108. An inmate has a right to appeal a classification
decision within ten days. Id. ¶ 109. All
inmates, including those in disciplinary segregation, can
make collect telephone calls regularly during assigned time
periods, with some exceptions. Id. ¶ 110.
Maximum Security Related Incidents
November 6, 2012, Mr. Stile was moved from the seventy-two
hour section of the jail to maximum security as a result of a
threat he made in the seventy-two hour section, where he
stated that if “he was out with these skinners and cop
beaters, he would punch someone.” Id.
¶¶ 70, 72. Before that threat, Mr. Stile was
serving disciplinary segregation that began November 2, 2012,
and was set to end November 9, 2012. Id. ¶ 71.
November 16, 2012, Defendant DelRossi was working in maximum
security, and during one of her security checks, she noticed
water in the 111 dayroom coming out of cell 116. Id.
¶¶ 75-76. When Defendant DelRossi spoke to Mr.
Stiles, he stated that he had flooded his cell. Id.
¶ 77. Defendant DelRossi placed Mr. Stile in cell A-224,
where he had no toilet paper, running water, legal papers,
hygienic items, bedding or blankets, and plumbing issues.
Compl. ¶ 18. Mr. Stile was removed to the
intake tank cell at approximately 1350 hours and brought back
to maximum security at approximately 1445 hours. DSMF ¶
November 18, 2012, Mr. Stile was reclassified as maximum
security. Compl. ¶ 19; Id. ¶ 96.
Lieutenant William Brady reclassified Mr. Stile on an
emergency basis due to Mr. Stile's threatening officers,
continually throwing things, smearing feces, and flooding his
cell. DSMF ¶¶ 96, 98. Mr. Stile received notice
that he had been reclassified and did not appeal this
decision. Id. ¶¶ 97, 99. Defendant Young
was not involved in the decision to reclassify Mr. Stile to
maximum security. Id. ¶ 100. On November 21,
2012, Mr. Stile's classification was reviewed, and it was
decided to maintain Mr. Stile in maximum security.
Id. ¶ 101. Mr. Stile's classification was
reviewed again on December 19, 2012, and Mr. Stile's
classification was maintained as maximum security.
Id. ¶ 102. From the time he was reclassified to
maximum security until he was transferred out of Cumberland
County Jail, Mr. Stile did not ask for his classification to
be reviewed. Id. ¶ 103.
three different dates in November and December 2012, Mr.
Stile was taken to intake and returned to maximum security
within a few hours. Id. ¶¶ 82-85, 87-
89. On December 6, 2012, Mr. Stile was
placed in cell F-228 for six and half hours without shoes or
socks by Defendants Abrol and Pickreign. Compl.
¶ 20. On December 7, 2012, Defendant Pickreign had all
of Mr. Stile's belongings taken from his cell.
Id. ¶ 38. Two of these transfers were done so
that Mr. Stile's cell could be cleaned, one because Mr.
Stile had urinated under his cell door before being moved.
DSMF ¶¶ 84-85, 87-89. Inmates are occasionally
moved from maximum security to intake to facilitate cell
cleaning. Id. ¶ 86.
Incidents Relating to Meals, Beverages, Privacy, and Other
Jail Related Conditions
separate occasions in November of 2012, Mr. Stile misused his
food tray. Id. ¶¶ 74, 79-81. In two of
these incidents, Mr. Stile made derogatory remarks, one
toward a corrections officer, and he also urinated on the
floor. Id. ¶¶ 74, 80-81. On December 9,
2012, Defendant Logan threw his food tray to the floor,
depriving him of that meal. Compl. ¶ 40.
F-228 and F-229 are intake holding cells known as “the
Tank.” DSMF ¶ 90. In these cells, inmates have
access to water in their cells but are given cups filled with
juice at mealtimes. Id. ¶¶ 91-92.
Corrections Officer Christopher Phillips often handled Mr.
Stile's beverage cup in an unsanitary manner.
Compl. ¶ 40. Mr. Stile never complained to
Defendant Phillips about how he handed Mr. Stile's cup
and did not request another cup from Defendant Phillips. DSMF
Pickreign looked at Mr. Stile's discovery photographs in
his cell. Compl. ¶ 25. Defendant Abrol also
discussed the basis for Mr. Stile's conviction with other
inmates. Id. ¶ 29. On November 27, 2012,
Defendant Renna threw his mail in “biohazard”
water, making it illegible. Id. ¶
35. On November 28, 2012, Defendants Renna
and Purinton threw debris and urine under his cell door, and
Defendant Renna threw his mail in urine on the floor.
Id. ¶ 37.
Access to Legal Materials at Cumberland County Jail
Cumberland County Jail's Policies on Legal
to Policy F-340, inmates are not permitted to keep law books
in their cells overnight. DSMF ¶ 113. Under the same
policy, inmates in maximum security and seventy-two hour are
provided legal books on a cart system. Id. ¶
114. The cart contains a variety of basic legal
materials. Id. Materials not on the cart, including
caselaw, can be requested through requests slips and
similarly, to access the computer with Westlaw, a request
form must be filled out. Id. ¶¶ 115-16.
Access to Legal Materials
Stile asserts he dismissed his previous § 1983 action
(2:12-CV-260) because he did not have access to law books and
the legal computer. Compl. ¶ 10. Corrections
Officers Adam Mitchell and Stanley Piknik, and Lieutenant
Arlene Jacques provided Mr. Stile with inadequate, damaged
law books and did not often allow him to access the legal
computer. Id. Corrections Officer Mark Stotts in
conjunction with Defendants Purinton, Renna, Logan,
Pickreign, Breton, Phillips, and Young also denied Mr. Stile
access to the legal computer. Id. Defendants
Stotts, Renna, Piknik, Mitchell, Pickreign, Jacques,
Purinton, Logan, Young, and Phillips, never denied Mr. Stile
access to law books or legal materials unless he had engaged
in disruptive behavior that created a security threat for the
jail. DSMF ¶¶ 124, 127.
legal books cart containing legal materials alternated
between maximum security and seventy-two hour and was
generally in maximum security for two or three days and in
seventy-two hour for two or three days, and so forth. DSMF
¶ 119. Before being moved, the cart was checked to make
sure all the required books were on it. Id. ¶
120. Mr. Stile was found to have law books in his cell on
several occasions and was written up for these violations.
Id. ¶¶ 117-118. Mr. Stile did not request
access to the Westlaw computers from April 2012 until at
least November 7, 2012. Id. ¶ 121. Defendant
Breton had no knowledge that corrections officers were not
following policies with regard to Mr. Stile's access to
Westlaw, legal computers, or other legal materials.
Id. ¶ 122. Defendant Joyce is not aware of any
occasions when inmates or detainees at the jail have been
unlawfully denied access to legal materials. Id.
November 27, 2012, Defendant Stotts dumped Mr. Stile's
legal mail in a puddle of toilet water.
Compl. ¶ 32. On November 30, 2012, Defendant
Philips told a medical worker that Mr. Stile did not have to
call his attorney and could write him instead; however,
Defendant Philips did not provide Mr. Stile with writing
materials. Id. ¶ 36.
Cumberland County ...