Gladu v. Me. Dep't of Corr.

1

NICHOLAS GLADU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00449-JDL

United States District Court, D. Maine

December 2, 2022

ORDER AND COK WARNING

JON D LEVY, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Gladu and Anthony Hardy are incarcerated in the Maine State Prison (“MSP”) in Warren, Maine, and are proceeding pro se. The Plaintiffs filed this action on December 2, 2020, against Defendants Maine Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), Wellpath LLC (“Wellpath”), and various prison officials and prison healthcare providers in their official and individual capacities, alleging claims related to the conditions of confinement in the prison's Special Management Unit (“SMU”) (ECF No. 1). A Motion to Amend the Complaint was filed on March 18, 2021 (ECF No. 40). While the motion was pending, Gladu and Hardy refiled a Motion for Leave to File the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62) after the other Plaintiffs had been dismissed from the case.^[1] With leave from the Court, Gladu and Hardy filed an Amended Complaint on June 30, 2021 (ECF No. 68).

Following a series of Recommended Decisions issued by Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison (ECF Nos. 75, 86) and Objections (ECF Nos 81, 91), the Court allowed Plaintiffs' first Amended Complaint to proceed (ECF No. 104). The Amended Complaint asserted Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act claims against the MDOC Defendants; Eighth Amendment claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant Randall Liberty in his official capacity and various other claims against Wellpath and individual Defendants. The following claims were ordered dismissed: all claims against Defendants Ryan Thornell, Daniel Ritter, and John Newby; all claims against Defendant Liberty in his personal capacity; and all section 1983 and state-law damages claims against the MDOC Defendants.

Plaintiffs then moved for leave to file a second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 139) on February 28, 2022, and filed another request with a Proposed Amended Complaint attached (ECF No. 162) on April 1, 2022. They also sought to attach their previously filed exhibits to the amended complaint (ECF No. 163). The proposed second Amended Complaint omits the state law claims asserted in the earlier complaints and alleges claims under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, adds a “Writ of Habeas Corpus for Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement,” adds a civil conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 (West 2022), and requests “injunctive relief providing [Plaintiffs] with inpatient intensive mental health care and treatment.” ECF No. 162 at 2.

On March 7, 2022, following the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, the MDOC Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Hardy's federal claims and moved to dismiss certain claims in the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 140). The Defendants argue that (1) Hardy failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; (2) Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) Plaintiffs are statutorily barred from bringing their state law tort claims. The MDOC Defendants also moved for judicial notice of three prison policies and the website profiles of both Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) (ECF No. 147).

The Wellpath Defendants separately moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 146), arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with pre-litigation requirements under the Maine Health Securities Act and have failed to state a breach of contract claim.

Gladu also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 227) on July 25, 2022, seeking to enjoin the Defendants to schedule a neurological evaluation for him. Gladu filed a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 17, 2022, seeking to enjoin the MDOC Defendants from using food as a form of punishment or reward (ECF No. 245).

I proceed by first addressing Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison's Recommended Decision (ECF No. 196) on the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motions to Dismiss, followed by the Recommended Decisions on Gladu's motions for preliminary injunctions. I then consider Gladu's objections to Judge Nivison's Orders on the non-dispositive motions.

I. THE JUNE 8, 2022 RECOMMENDED DECISION

Judge Nivison filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 196) with the Court on June 8, 2022, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2022); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The recommended decision addresses the MDOC Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 140), the Wellpath Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 146), the related Responses and Reply (ECF Nos. 152, 159, 160), see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West 2022), the Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 162), and the Defendants' Responses (ECF Nos. 157, 175, 177). Judge Nivison recommends that the Court (1) grant in part the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment but allow Hardy's section 1983 conditions of confinement based on unsanitary conditions claim to proceed; and (2) deny as moot the MDOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Wellpath Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because the Plaintiffs did not include the challenged state law claims in their Second Amended Complaint.

Judge Nivison also recommends that the Court grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, concluding that the Second Amended Complaint states an actionable habeas corpus claim, but that the Title III ADA claim against the Wellpath Defendants, the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against individual Wellpath Defendants, the section 1985 civil conspiracy claim, and Hardy's remaining federal claims would be futile. Gladu filed an Objection (ECF No. 198) to Judge Nivison's Recommended Decision on June 21, 2022, requesting de novo review, with specific objections to Judge Nivison's findings on the ADA Title III claim, the civil conspiracy claim, and the dismissal of Hardy's federal claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendations of Judge Nivison regarding the dispositive motions for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. Thus, Judge Nivison's Recommended Decision is accepted. I also affirm Judge Nivison's rulings on the non-dispositive motions addressed in the Recommended Decision.

I do, however, address Gladu's specific objections to Judge Nivison's conclusions about the futility of some of his claims in the Second Amended Complaint. First, Gladu argues that the Title III ADA claim against private healthcare provider Wellpath is actionable, citing two cases that found that private healthcare facilities constitute places of public accommodation for the purposes of a Title III ADA claim, Hernandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, 70 F.Supp.3d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). I concur with Judge Nivison that, despite these decisions, “the weight of authority” does not recognize private healthcare facilities as places of public accommodations. ECF No. 198 at 9-10. I rely on the controlling weight of authority, together with the established authority within the District of Maine, to conclude that Gladu does not have an actionable Title III ADA claim against Wellpath as a private healthcare provider operating within the Maine State Prison. See Gross v. Landry, No. 2:17-cv-00297-LEW, 2019 WL 1270922 at *8-10 (D. Me. Mar. 19, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1756522 (D. Me. Apr. 19, 2019).

Second, a civil conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 requires a plaintiff to provide “plausible factual allegations sufficient to support a reasonable inference that such an agreement was made.” Alston v. Spiegel, 988 F.3d 564, 578 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Parker v. Landry, 935 F.3d 9, 19 (1st Cir. 2019)). Here, Gladu's only support for a civil conspiracy claim is based on “information and belief,” and his second Amended Complaint and Objection fails to provide more than a conclusory allegation that Dr. James Fine “conspired with other defendants (directly and/or indirectly) to fraudulently rule-out all of [his] long-standing mental health diagnoses.” ECF No. 162-1 at 13; ECF No. 198 at 2.

And finally, Gladu argues that Hardy can vicariously rely on Gladu's exhaustion of administrative remedies and proceed with Hardy's section 1983 claims. Because Plaintiffs do not allege in their second amended complaint that they are members of a class in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and courts have only applied the doctrine of vicarious exhaustion to certified class actions, I concur with Judge Nivison's assessment that Hardy may not rely on Gladu's exhaustion of administrative remedies.

On the non-dispositive issues, Judge Nivison granted the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice of prison policies and Plaintiffs' website profiles, and granted the Plaintiffs' motion regarding the attachment of exhibits to the second amended complaint. I have reviewed and considered the record and affirm Judge Nivison's recommendations on these motions.

II. RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS

On July 25, 2022, Gladu moved for a preliminary injunction (ECF No 227) to enjoin Wellpath and the MDOC Defendants to order a...