United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON OMNIBUS MOTION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER, MOTION
FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND MOTION FOR
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court is going to schedule the trial in this case at a date
after the Plaintiff is released from incarceration, the Court
dismisses the Plaintiff's motion for pretrial order,
which is premised on potential complications from his
incarceration. The Court dismisses his motion for
disqualification of defense counsel because the motion is
based on dismissed allegations. The Court denies his motion
for protective order because the Plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated in the institution where he claims they violated
his rights and because he has not demonstrated that he
exhausted his administrative remedies.
September 28, 2018, the Court issued a comprehensive order on
dispositive motions, concluding that the Defendants were
entitled to summary judgment except for one claim against
three individual Defendants. Order on Defs.' Mot. for
J. on the Pleadings and Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 252).
The Court's September 28, 2018 order left Mr. Stile's
procedural due process claim pending against Defendants
Christopher Bisson, George Paneka and Bryan Leblanc regarding
whether they improperly refused to allow Mr. Stile to attend
five disciplinary hearings on November 21, 2012. Id.
at 7-8, 13, 38-39. On October 12, 2018, the Court set this
case for trial on December 3, 2018, Trial List (ECF
No. 254), and on October 16, 2018, the Court scheduled a
final pretrial conference before the Magistrate Judge.
Notice of Hr'g (ECF No. 256). However, on
October 22, 2018, Defendants Bisson, Paneka and Leblanc filed
an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No.
258) and on October 22, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order on the motion for summary
judgment. Mot. for Recons. on Order of Summ. J. of
Ct. (ECF No. 259). Upon the Defendants' notice of
interlocutory appeal, the Court removed the case from the
December 2018 trial list. Notice (ECF No. 265).
his motion for reconsideration was still pending, on October
29, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's September 28, 2018 order. Notice of
Appeal (ECF No. 266). The Defendants responded to Mr.
Stile's motion for reconsideration on November 13, 2018.
Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Recons.
(ECF No. 270). The Court issued an order on February 11,
2019, denying Mr. Stile's motion for reconsideration,
Order Denying Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 279), and it
issued an amended order on February 12, 2019. Am. Order
on Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 280).
February 4, 2019, the Court received an order from the Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, granting the appellees'
motion to dismiss Mr. Stile's appeal. J. (ECF
No. 278). On February 20, 2019, the First Circuit dismissed
the interlocutory appeal of Defendants Bisson, Panenka and
Leblanc. J. (ECF No. 283). The Court of Appeals
issued its mandates on both matters on February 26, 2019 and
March 13, 2019, restoring the jurisdiction of the case to
this Court. Mandate (ECF No. 284); Mandate
(ECF No. 285).
the appeals were pending, Mr. Stile filed a motion for
pretrial order on January 14, 2019, a motion to disqualify
defense counsel on January 15, 2019, and a motion for order
to enforce protective order and confidentiality orders on
January 22, 2019. Omnibus Mot. of Pl. (ECF No. 271)
(Omnibus Mot.); Mot. for Disqualification of
Defense Counsel Wheeler & Arey P.A., Peter T. Marchesi
and Cassandra Shaffer (ECF No. 272) (Disqual.
Mot.); Mot. for Enforcement of Protective Orders
& Confidentiality Orders (ECF No. 275)
(Protective Mot.). The Defendants responded to Mr.
Stile's omnibus motion on January 30, 2019 and to his
motion for disqualification on February 1, 2019.
Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Omnibus Mot. (ECF No.
271) (ECF No. 276); Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. for
Disqualification of Defense Counsel Wheeler & Arey, PA,
Peter T. Marchesi and Cassandra Shaffer (ECF No. 277).
The docket does not reflect a response to the motion to
enforce protective order, perhaps because Mr. Stile's
requested relief runs against the Bureau of Prisons, not
against the Defendants. On February 19, 2019, Mr. Stile filed
a reply to the Defendants' response to his motion for
disqualification. Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s Obj. to
Pl.'s Mot. for Disqualification of Defense Counsel
Wheeler & Arey P.A., Peter T. Marchesi and Cassandra
Shaffer (ECF No. 282).
The Scheduling of Trial
29, 2015, the Court sentenced James Stile to 120 months of
incarceration to be followed by five years of supervised
release, restitution in the amount of $13, 306.93, and a
special assessment of $100. United States v. Stile,
1:11-cr-185-JAW, J. (ECF No. 579). The docket in
this case confirms that Mr. Stile is currently incarcerated
at Allenwood Low Federal Correctional Institution in White
Deer, Pennsylvania. According to the United States Bureau of
Prisons' inmate locator, James Stile's projected
release date is July 27, 2020. See
Court has resolved to schedule Mr. Stile's trial in this
case as soon as possible after his release from
incarceration. There are a number of reasons for this
decision. First, once Mr. Stile is released from
incarceration, even though he will be on supervised release,
he will have far greater freedom. This freedom will allow him
unfettered access to legal research material, the ability to
prepare documents and witnesses for trial, and the freedom to
try his case without the restrictions inherent in a jail
setting. Moreover, as Mr. Stile's omnibus motion
suggests, it is no simple matter to have a federal prisoner
attend a civil trial. Mr. Stile's own motion anticipates
the need for a writ of habeas corpus, transportation under
the aegis of the Marshal's Service, incarceration in
another facility close enough to the courthouse to allow for
his attendance, daily transportation to and from the
courthouse, access to research materials, and a host of other
problematic matters. All these issues will be obviated if the
Court schedules the trial after Mr. Stile is released from
Mr. Stile is suing Corrections Officers from the Cumberland
County Jail and the trial is scheduled to be heard in
Portland, part of Cumberland County. If he is incarcerated at
the time of his trial, it seems impractical and unwise for
Mr. Stile to be housed in the same jail he is suing.
Therefore, he would likely have to be incarcerated at another
facility and he and the Government would face the expense and
inconvenience of his being housed in an institution at a
distance from Portland. If released from incarceration, Mr.
Stile could select a place of his own choosing to stay in the
Portland area during the trial, something that will allow him
to more effectively represent himself.
based on the Court's current trial schedule, the earliest
date it could set a trial in this case would not be until
after the turn of the year, and the scheduling of any civil
action is subject to the need to first try any criminal
trials due to the Speedy Trial Act. Therefore, although there
will be a delay of more than one year from the date of this
order, the practical delay is perhaps six months, which on
balance is justified.
although the Court is concerned about the length of time
since the events in this case, the events surrounding the
November 21, 2012 disciplinary hearings took place nearly
seven years ago. Given the time already passed, an additional
year (or six months) is less likely to affect the