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. Cumberland County Sheriff

United States District Court, D. Maine

September 28, 2018

JAMES STILE, Plaintiff,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

         James 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.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On 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 case.[1]

         On 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).

         On 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).

         Mr. 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).

         Mr. 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. at 6-7.[2]

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment[3]

         A court 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. 2002)).

         The 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)).

         B. Local Rule 56 of the District of Maine

         A pro 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)).

         At the 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 Procedure 56(e)).

         III. STATEMENT OF FACTS[4]

         A. The Parties

         On October 30, 2015, Mr. Stile pleaded guilty to a robbery charge and was sentenced on May 29, 2015. DSMF ¶ 4.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7] 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.

         B. Disciplinary Hearings at Cumberland County Jail

         On November 21, 2012, Corrections Officers Bryan Leblanc, Christopher Bisson and Lieutenant George Panenka[8] were part of a disciplinary board that conducted five disciplinary hearings concerning Mr. Stile. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14; DSMF ¶ 5.[9] Even though he demonstrated a desire to attend the hearing, Mr. Stile was denied the right to attend.[10] Compl. ¶ 14.

         1. Cumberland County Jail's Policies for Disciplinary Hearings

         The 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 alleged violation.
G. The right to call witnesses to the incident and other relevant witnesses and present evidence . . . .

Id. ¶ 111.

         2. First Hearing

         The 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.

         3. Second Hearing

         The 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.[11] 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.[12] 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.

         4. Third Hearing

         Mr. 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.

         5. Fourth Hearing

         The 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.

         6. Fifth Hearing

         The 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.

         7. Aftermath of Disciplinary Hearings[13]

         Mr. 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.[14] 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.[15]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. ¶ 37.

         C. Somerset County Jail

         1. Somerset County Jail's Policies

         At 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. ¶ 42.

         2. Previous Discipline at Somerset County Jail

         Mr. 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.

         D. November 29, 2012 Incident

         On 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.[16] 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.

         Before 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. ¶ 59.

         Mr. 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. ¶¶ 68-69.

         E. Transition to Maximum Security

         1. Reclassification to Maximum Security Policy

         Cumberland 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.

         2. Maximum Security Related Incidents

         On 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.[17] Before that threat, Mr. Stile was serving disciplinary segregation that began November 2, 2012, and was set to end November 9, 2012. Id. ¶ 71.

         On 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 ¶ 78.

         On 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.[18] 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.

         On 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.[19] 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.

         F. Incidents Relating to Meals, Beverages, Privacy, and Other Jail Related Conditions

         On four 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.

         Cells 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 ¶ 93.

         Defendant 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.[20] 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.

         G. Access to Legal Materials at Cumberland County Jail

         1. Cumberland County Jail's Policies on Legal Materials

         Pursuant 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.[21] 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.

         2. Access to Legal Materials

         Mr. 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.[22] 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.

         The 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. ¶ 123.

         On November 27, 2012, Defendant Stotts dumped Mr. Stile's legal mail in a puddle of toilet water.[23] 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.

         H. Grievances

         1. Cumberland County ...


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.