Montrond v. Spencer

1

AMARAL MONTROND, Plaintiff, v. LUIS SPENCER, MICHAEL THOMPSON, JAMES GALLAGHER, DALE BISSONETTE, PAUL LETENDRE, JONATHAN HEALEY, FREDERICK LOUGHRAN, JONATHAN MACAL, KYLE FITZPATRICK, RICHARD HASBROUK, MICHAEL DONAHUE, JEREMY BRESSLER, MICHAEL RICKETTS, MICHELA PAONE-STUART, CHARLES HESLIN, JAMES BAIROS, BRIAN BIBEAU, SHAWN LOUGHRAN, MARK WAITKEVICH, THOMAS MERLINO, NICHOLAS BULL, MICHAEL CHAPLAIN, BRANDON WALBURN, JOSHUA RYAN, DENNY SANTOS, DEREK GIASANTI, JOSE CID, BRIAN GONZALEZ, EDWARD MORRIS, CARRIE EARLE, KRISTI SALVATELLI, ALLISON TARDY, SARAH BIRABWA, ALLISON [LAST NAME UNKNOWN, and JANE DOE, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-cv-10505-ADB

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

March 14, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Amaral Montrond (“Plaintiff” or “Montrond”) initiated this action seeking monetary damages from Defendants, current and former employees of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (“DOC”), in connection with alleged physical assaults and inadequate medical care while he was incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord (“MCI-Concord”). [ECF No. 125 ¶ 2]. Currently before the Court is Defendants Brian Bibeau Jeremy Bressler, Nicholas Bull, Michael Chaplin, Jose Cid Michael Donahue, Kyle Fitzpatrick, Derek Giansanti, Brandon Gonzalez, Johnathan Healey, Paul Letendre, Frederick Loughran (“F. Loughran”), Shawn Loughran (“S Loughran”), Jonathan Macal, Thomas Merlino, Michela Paone-Stuart, Michael Ricketts, Joshua Ryan, Denny Santos, and Brandon Wilburn's (collectively, “DOC Defendants”) motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 320].^[1] For the reasons stated below, the DOC Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On February 5, 2019, upon reassignment of this action to the undersigned, Montrond's Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 125 (“SAC”)], was docketed per the Court's February 5, 2019 Order, [ECF No. 124]. The Second Amended Complaint asserted nine counts: Counts IVII allege violations of Montrond's Eighth Amendment rights and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights Article XXVI (“Article 26”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,^[2] Count VIII claims Assault and Battery,^[3] and Count IX asserts the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.^[4][SAC ¶¶ 131-163].

On February 4, 2020, the Court dismissed Count I as to Fitzpatrick for actions taken after a March 13, 2014 alleged assault, [ECF No. 168 at 22-23], and Count II as to Bull, who was the only defendant against whom Count II was brought. [Id. at 32]. Moreover, the Court granted the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI to the extent that recovery was premised “solely on violation of the cited [Massachusetts] policies and regulations,” [id. at 2829], or in other words, to the extent that Montrond sought monetary damages based solely on violations of Massachusetts regulations, [id. at 32-33].

Accordingly, the following claims remain against the following DOC Defendants, all of which are the subject of this motion for summary judgment:

• Count I (March 13, 2014): Letendre, Gonzalez, Ricketts, Healey, F. Loughran, Macal, Fitzpatrick, Bressler, Paone-Stuart, and Donahue. [SAC ¶¶ 131-136].

• Count III (July 15, 2014): Ryan, Santos, Merlino, Bull, Cid, and Giansanti. [Id. ¶¶ 140-142].

• Count IV (August 1 to 5, 2014): Chaplin, Merlino, and Bull. [Id. ¶¶ 146-147].

• Count V (August 11, 2014): Walburn. [Id. ¶¶ 149-150].

• Count VI (July and August 2014): Chaplin, Bull, Walburn, Bibeau, and S. Loughran. [Id. ¶¶ 151-153].

• Count VII (July 26 to 30, 2014): Bibeau. [Id. ¶¶ 154-155].

• Count VIII (Assault and Battery): Letendre, Gonzalez, Healey, F. Loughran, Fitzpatrick, Macal, Rickets, Ryan, Santos, Merlino, Bull, Chaplin, and Walburn. [Id. ¶¶ 158-161].

B. Background Facts

Except as otherwise noted, the following facts are not in dispute.^[5]

Montrond is an inmate in the custody of the DOC. [SOF ¶ 1]. The events relevant to

Montrond's claims occurred between March 2014 and August 2014 while he was incarcerated at

MCI-Concord, see [id. ¶ 2], and include the following incidents.

1. March 13, 2014 (Counts I and VIII)

Counts I and VIII allege that on March 13, 2014, there was a “spontaneous Use of Force” (“SUOF”) involving Montrond, and Letendre, Gonzalez, Ricketts, Healey, F. Loughran, Macal, Bressler, Paone-Stuart, and Donahue. [SOF ¶ 22; SAC ¶¶ 131-136]. In a video of the incident that is without sound, [ECF No. 337-26 (video provided in native format)], Montrond is seen entering an office that is not easily visible on the camera. See [id. at 2:31 PM]. Two individuals are outside the office, presumably DOC Defendants Paone-Stuart and Bressler. See [ECF No. 336 at 11-12]; see also [ECF No. 337-26 at 2:31 PM]. Montrond argues that shortly after they enter the office, “[m]ovement in the Office is visible,” and “[t]his is when the physical confrontation occurs.” [ECF No. 336 at 10]; see also [ECF No. 337-26 at 2:31 PM]. The camera quality and image are not sufficient to determine whether and how much force was used. See [ECF No. 337-26 at 2:31 PM]. Then, at 2:32 PM, officers are seen entering the office, and at 2:34 PM, it appears that Montrond is escorted from the office by multiple officers. See [id.].

The incident was investigated by Michael Grant, Acting Deputy Commissioner in the Administrative Services Division. [ECF No. 337-3 at 2]. The “Description of Issue” section of the investigative report states that, at approximately 2:30 PM, the following occurred:

. . . Montrond was called to the office by LETENDRE to go bring the laundry cart back to C-Building[]. Montrond entered the office, turned towards LETENDRE with his hands concealed under his jacket that he was carrying in his arms. Montrond replied to LETENDRE “Do you have a fucking problem?” LETENDRE ordered Montro[n]d to drop his jacket and place his hands on the counter so that he could see them. Montrond did not comply and turned aggressively towards LETENDRE and stated “You're lucky I don't punch you in the face right now, bitch.” At that time LETENDRE placed both arms around Montrond's upper torso and brought him to the ground. Emergency response was activated and Montrond was restrained and escorted to the [Health Services Unit (“HSU”)] by C.O. Charles Heslin and Lt. Kyle Fitzpatrick then to the SMU by Lt. Richard Hasbrouck and Fitzpatrick. Montrond remained combative throughout the entire escort.

[Id. at 5]; see also [SOF ¶ 21 (defining HSU)]. The investigation found that “allegations made by Montrond against Letendre are not sustained.” [ECF No. 337-3 at 62]; see also [SOF ¶ 23]. Specifically, the report stated that

the allegations Montrond made of being assaulted by LETENDRE, responding staff, and GONZALEZ are UNFOUNDED. This finding is supported by the self admission by Montrond that he was angry with staff prior to the SUOF and the refusal of direct orders documented by LETENDRE, inconsistent injuries based on his allegations of being assaulted and the guilty finding of his disciplinary report by the CIDU. Furthermore, based on preponderance of the evidence, LETENDRE did initiate a SUOF on Montrond that was in compliance with the Department of Correction 505 Use of Force Policy by bringing Montrond to the floor when he perceived threat.

[ECF No. 337-3 at 54-55]. Montrond disputes the investigation's findings, see [ECF No. 336 at 12-13], and argues that the force occurred because Montrond refused to return a luggage cart to its proper place, [id. at 8-11], and Letendre “was annoyed at Montrond's dilatoriness and perceived non-compliance and decided in advance to rough him up to impose discipline,” [id. at 13-14].

The investigation also found that there were “numerous policy violations against other staff for their failure to write reports relating to this incident and failing to include specific information in existing reports that were submitted.” [ECF No. 337-3 at 62]; see also [SOF ¶ 23]. Specifically, the investigation report said that, among other things, DOC Defendant S. Loughran and other officers “had no direct contact with Montrond but did respond and failed to submit incident reports documenting their response.” [ECF No. 337-3 at 55]; see also [SOF ¶ 23]. In addition, the report found that DOC Defendant Paone-Stuart failed to timely file a report about the incident and was “less than truthful” when asked why she did not submit the report on time. [ECF No. 337-3 at 57-59]; see also [SOF ¶ 23].

After the incident, at around 2:40 PM, Montrond was seen by medical staff and then brought to the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) for housing. [SOF ¶¶ 25-26; ECF No. 321-5 at 70]. At approximately 3:15 PM, he was seen for treatment, and the nurse who saw him wrote “[r]ight eyebrow with swelling and several scattered small scratches.” [SOF ¶ 26; ECF No. 3215 at 71]. Also while he was in the HSU being examined by medical staff, Montrond alleges that he was punched by DOC Defendant Gonzalez, [SOF ¶ 21]; see also [ECF No. 337-3 at 52], which he alleges caused headaches, [SOF ¶ 42]. At his deposition, Montrond testified that “his injuries from the March 13, 2014 [incident include] ‘head injuries, mental/emotional injuries, [] scratch and bump bruises to my head, face, under my left eye, [and] eyebrow.” [Id. ¶ 24]. He further testified that he suffered a concussion as a result of the incident, [id. ¶ 28], and still suffers from “migraines,” [id. ¶ 27], although this reflects a self-diagnosis as he has not been diagnosed with either by a medical professional, [id. ¶¶ 28-30], or told by a medical professional that his current headaches are related to the March 13, 2014 incident, [id. ¶ 31]. Nevertheless, Montrond continued to seek treatment for...