Harris v. Liberty

DARIEN HARRIS, Plaintiff v. RANDALL LIBERTY, et al., Defendants

1:19-cv-00346-LEW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

January 29, 2020

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Maine State Prison, alleges Defendants¹ violated his constitutional rights and a federal statute due to the conditions of his confinement under "constant watch" for a period of eight days in September 2018. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13), and Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Complaint. (Motion to Amend, ECF No. 15.)

Following a review of the relevant pleadings and after consideration of the parties' arguments, I grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint and recommend the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended.

I. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint

Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a litigant to amend a pleading "once as a matter of course," subject to certain time constraints. When a party seeks to amend a complaint more than 21 days after the filing of a responsive pleading, the other party's consent or leave of court is required in order to amend the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In such a case, the court is to grant leave to amend "freely" when "justice so requires." Id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) ("In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'").

Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint on futility grounds. When a plaintiff files a motion to amend in response to a motion to dismiss, the court may deny the motion to amend, in whole or in part, if the proposed amendment would be futile. See Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996). A "futile" amendment is one that "would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." Id. In other words, "if the proposed amendment would be futile because, as thus amended, the complaint still fails to state a claim, the district court acts within its discretion in denying the motion to amend." Boston & Me. Corp. v. Hampton, 987 F.2d 855, 868 (1st Cir. 1993).

Through their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a number of his claims. The assessment of the motion to dismiss and Defendants' futility argument as to the motion to amend involve the same analysis -whether in his complaint as amended, Plaintiff has asserted actionable claims. See Glassman, 90 F.3d at 623 ("There is no practical difference, in terms of review, between a denial of a motion to amend based on futility and the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim"). As explained below, assuming the truth of Plaintiff's factual assertions and allowing Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the alleged facts, Blanco, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 221, in his complaint as amended, Plaintiff asserts an actionable claim.² Plaintiff's complaint, therefore, is amended in accordance with this order and recommended decision.

II. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 30301 et seq., that he has failed to state an actionable claim for a constitutional deprivation, and based on his allegations, that he cannot recover compensatory damages under the Prison Litigation and Reform Act.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The facts set forth below are derived from Plaintiff's complaint, as amended. (ECF Nos. 1, 15.) Plaintiff's factual allegations are deemed true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. McKee v. Cosby, 874 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir. 2017).

Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2018, he was accused of possessing unidentified contraband and then strip-searched in his cell by Defendants Burnham, Merrifield and Engstfeld. (Complaint ¶ 1.) According to Plaintiff, after no contraband was found, Defendants Engstfeld and Merrifield lodged false reports, contending that Plaintiff had placed an unknown item in his mouth. (Id. ¶ 2; Motion to Amend ¶ 2. ECF No. 15) Following a negative urinalysis test, Plaintiff was placed in another cell, with only a mattress and without a toilet, sink or running water. (Complaint ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff asserts that he was held under "constant watch" in this cell for eight and a half days. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff contends the cell was unclean and maintained at low temperatures. (Id. ¶ 5.) He further alleges that he was permitted to wear only a pair of boxer shorts, which he wore for the duration of his time under constant watch; that he was restrained and observed whenever he ate or relieved himself; and that he could not maintain his personal hygiene.³ (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Manning refused Plaintiff's requests for adequate bedding, showers, and clean clothing. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that he eventually consented, under duress, to a search of his mouth by a medical department dentist. (Id., ¶¶ 18-19; Motion to Amend ¶ 5.) No contraband of any type was ever discovered. (Complaint ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ross and Cantillo were responsible for overseeing and managing the constant watch practice, and that Defendant Manning refused all his requests to address the conditions. (Complaint ¶¶ 14, 11, 22; Motion to Amend ¶¶ 3, 5.)Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Melquist and Drake were required to inspect segregation housing every 24 hours and to meet with prisoners in segregation, but that neither did so. (Complaint ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant Cantillo interviewed Plaintiff while he was under constant watch, but he failed to change the conditions under which Plaintiff was being held. (Complaint ¶ 14; Motion to Amend ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff filed a grievance after being released from constant watch; Defendant Ames, who allegedly failed to investigate Plaintiff's grievance, dismissed the grievance. (Complaint ¶ 23.) Plaintiff filed another grievance with Defendant Burnham, who determined that Plaintiff could not grieve the asserted issues. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff then forwarded his grievance to Defendant Black, who concluded that the prison's policy governing "contraband watches" had been followed. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff appealed from Defendant Black's response to Defendant Liberty, who determined that appropriate procedures had been followed with respect to Plaintiff's treatment in constant watch. (Id. ¶ 26.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "The relevant question ... in assessing plausibility is not whether the complaint makes any particular factualallegations but, rather, whether 'the complaint warrant[s] dismissal because it failed in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to relief plausible.'" Rodríguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n.14).

Although a pro se plaintiff's complaint is subject to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the complaint may not consist entirely of "conclusory allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard," Young v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013). See also Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980) (explaining that the liberal standard applied to the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs "is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim").

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Claim Under the PREA

The Prison Rape Elimination Act "does not grant prisoners any specific rights." Chinnici v. Edwards, No. 1:07-cv-229, 2008 WL 3851294, at *3 (D. Vt. Aug. 12, 2008).

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ("PREA"), was enacted to address the problem of rape in prison by creating a commission to study the issue and to develop national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of prison rape. 42 U.S.C. § 15601. Nothing in the statute suggests that PREA intended to establish a private cause of action for allegations of prison rape, and every court to address the issue has determined that PREA cannot support such a cause of action by an inmate.

Gagnon v. Fitzpatrick, 1:15-cv-00355-JDL, 2015 WL 8601316, at*2 (D. Me. Nov. 4, 2015) (quoting Amaker v. Fischer, No. 1:10-cv-00977, 2014 WL 4772202, at *14 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2014) (collecting cases)). Because PREA does not authorize a private cause ofaction, Plaintiff has not and cannot state a claim against any defendant based on an alleged violation of PREA.

B. Plaintiff's Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a civil action to any person deprived of a federal right by a state actor. Pursuant to § 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and

...