Stile v. Somerset Cnty., 1:13-cv-00248-JAW

JAMES STILE, Plaintiff, v. SOMERSET COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

1:13-cv-00248-JAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

May 18, 2018

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A FINDING OF CONTEMPT

The Court overrules the Plaintiff's objection to a Magistrate Judge's order in which the Magistrate Judge declined to hold a corrections officer Defendant in contempt of court for allegedly false sworn statements. The Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's order because the Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce criminal law and because the evidence does not confirm that the corrections officer lied in her affidavit.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On October 30, 2017, James Stile filed a motion asking this Court to hold Kelly Smith, a corrections officer with Somerset County Jail and a Defendant in this case, in contempt for having made allegedly perjurious statements in an affidavit submitted to the Court. Notice of Mot. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (ECF No. 460) (Pl.'s Mot.). On November 13, 2017, all Defendants, except Somerset County, Delong, Allen, Plourd, and Jacques, responded to Mr. Stile's motion. Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s Notice of Mot. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (ECF No. 471) (Defs.' Opp'n).

On December 5, 2017, the Court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge. On February 13, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an order in which he denied the motion. Order on Pl.'s Mots. for Contempt (ECF No. 493) (Order). On March 8, 2018, Mr. Stile objected to the Magistrate Judge's order. Pl.'s Obj. to ECF No. 493 Order on Pl.'s Mots. for Contempt (ECF No. 508) (Pl.'s Obj.). On March 16, 2018, the Defendants, except Somerset County, Delong, Allen, Mayhew, Welch, Jacques, Plourd, and Kline, responded. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Obj. to Order on Pl.'s Mots. for Contempt (ECF No. 512) (Defs.' Resp.). On March 20, 2018, Defendant David Allen responded to Mr. Stile's objection. Def. David Allen's Resp. to Pl.'s Obj. to Order on Mot. for Contempt (ECF No. 524) (Allen Resp.).

B. The Plaintiff's Motion and Defendants' Opposition¹

Mr. Stile claims that Corrections Officer Kelly Smith made perjurious statements in her affidavit filed with the Court. Pl.'s Mot. at 1-2 (citing Additional Attachs. Attach. 24 Aff. of Kelly Smith (ECF No. 433) (Smith Aff.)). Mr. Stile asserts that, for this reason, the Court should hold Ms. Smith in contempt. Pl.'s Mot. at 1. He highlights statements that he alleges were perjurious for failing to accuratelydescribe an episode in which one or more of the Defendants deployed an electrical device on him while extracting him from his prison cell on January 5, 2012. Specifically, Mr. Stile points to Ms. Smith's statement that Corrections Officer Walter "Fails asked for and was given the handheld electrical device by Lt. Jacques." Id. (quoting Smith Aff. ¶ 13). Mr. Stile asserts that by this statement, Ms. Smith "attempted to place the blame of her criminal actions of arming Corrections Officer Fails on Lt. Jacques." Pl.'s Mot. at 1. Mr. Stile's assertion, which he clarifies in a later filing, Pl.'s Obj. at 2-3, is that it was Ms. Smith, not Mr. Jacques, who handed the electrical device to Mr. Fails.

Mr. Stile also scrutinizes statements by Ms. Smith that read: "After another order to stand, Fails deployed the handheld electrical device twice on Stile's upper thigh for two short bursts," Id. (quoting Smith Aff. ¶ 14), and "Stile was told to stand again and he refused after which Fails deployed the handheld electrical device in Stile's right upper thigh for one short burst." Pl.'s Mot. (quoting Smith Aff. ¶ 15). According to Mr. Stile, these statements "are refuted by the Video Exhibit #35 of Defendants Video Exhibits that were submitted with their motions for summary judgment." Pl.'s Mot. at 2. Mr. Stile further contends that the affidavit of Defendant Jeffrey Jacques refutes Ms. Smith's statements. Id. (citing Statement of Fact Attach. 3 Aff. of Jeffrey Jacques (ECF No. 435) (Jacques Aff.)).

All Defendants, except Somerset County, Sheriff Delong, Allen, Plourd, and Jacques, oppose Mr. Stile's motion and argue that it should be dismissed solely on the basis that the statute under which Mr. Stile purports to make his motion, 18 U.S.C.§ 1623, is a criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action. Defs.' Opp'n at 2.

C. The Magistrate Judge's Order

In his order, the Magistrate Judge laid out some tenets of the Court's contempt power, including its foundations and that it is to be used sparingly. Order at 1-2. The Magistrate Judge determined that, even if Mr. Stile's assertions were accurate, a finding of contempt would not be warranted because: (1) "there is no evidence of record that either Defendant deliberately misrepresented a fact to this Court", and (2) "the record lacks any evidence that would support a finding that any alleged misrepresentation resulted in an obstruction of justice." Id. at 3 (citing S.E.C. v. Pinez, 52 F. Supp. 2d 205, 209 (D. Mass. 1999)). The Magistrate Judge observed that issues of witness credibility and accuracy of witness statements "can be appropriately assessed at the fact finding stage of the proceedings." Id. The Magistrate Judge's order also notes that Mr. Stile "does not have standing to prosecute a charge under a criminal statute." Id. at 2 n.1.

D. The Plaintiff's Objection

Mr. Stile objects to the Magistrate Judge's order on the basis that Ms. Smith's statements constitute deliberate misrepresentations of fact to the Court and that the statements were intended to and in fact did obstruct justice. Pl.'s Obj. at 2-4. Specifically, Mr. Stile believes that Ms. Smith handed the electrical device to another officer who then deployed it on Mr. Stile. Id. at 3. He suggests that by stating that someone else transferred the device to the officer who ultimately deployed it, Ms.Smith is seeking to shield herself from liability. Id. at 4. Mr. Stile also accuses Attorney Cassandra Shaffer, counsel for the Defendants to whom Ms. Smith swore out her affidavit, of "knowingly and intentionally facilitat[ing] this perjury." Id. at 3.

E. The Defendants' Response

The Defendants, except Somerset County, Delong, Allen, Mayhew, Welch, Jacques, Plourd, and Kline, respond to Mr. Stile's objection by arguing that there is "no allegation that Kelly [Smith] disobeyed a court order and no evidence of obstruction of justice." Defs.' Resp. at 2. These Defendants agree with the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Stile's complaints concern witness credibility and that such issues may be resolved later in the litigation. Id. Defendant David Allen filed a response in which he "adopts the argument presented by the other Defendants." Allen Resp. at 1.

II. DISCUSSION

As the Magistrate Judge's order is on a non-dispositive matter, the Court reviews the order to determine whether it is either "contrary to law" or "clearly erroneous." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). It is neither.

This is the second time Mr. Stile has moved the Court to hold someone in contempt of court. In United States v. Stile, No. 1:11-cr-00185-JAW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63377 (D. Me. Apr. 13, 2018), Mr. Stile moved the Court to hold a Bureau of Prisons employee in contempt for allegedly making perjurious statements under oath. On April 13, 2018, the Court rejected Mr. Stile's objection to the Magistrate Judge's order and denied his motion. Id. at *1-8. In rejecting Mr. Stile's contentions, theCourt concluded that Mr. Stile has no standing to require the Court to hold someone in contempt of court, that the statements were matters of opinion, not fact, and that the statements were not material. Id. The same result obtains here.

A. 18 U.S.C. § 1623

The Magistrate Judge is correct in concluding that Mr. Stile has no standing to make a claim that Ms. Smith violated 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Order at 2 n.1. If a violation of the criminal law occurred (and the Court does not conclude one has), it is not up to James Stile to prosecute the criminal violation and seek sanctions. It is up to federal prosecutors. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) ("[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case").

Even if Mr. Stile had standing (which he does not), in order for a statement to fall within the ambit of § 1623, the statement must be false. 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) ("Whoever under oath . . . knowingly makes any false material declaration . . . ."). Mr. Stile has an adamant view that Ms. Smith's statements about what happened in his jail cell on January 5, 2012 during the cell extraction are false. To be fair to Mr. Stile, the Court re-reviewed his Exhibit 35, the flash drive of the cell extraction of January 5, 2012 to determine whether it shed any light on what happened. See Stile v. Somerset Cty., 1:13-cv-000248-JAW, Ex. 35.

The Court previously described in detail the contents of Exhibit 35. See Stile v. United States, 1:17-cv-00159-JAW, 1:11-cr-00185-JAW, Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Mot. at 26-28(ECF No. 692) (Order). At one point, one of the corrections officers announces to Mr. Stile that he is giving him three orders; the first is to stand up. Mr. Stile protests that he cannot, and the officer reiterates the order. Mr. Stile again protests that he cannot, saying he has not walked for at least a week. The officer asserts that Mr. Stile walked earlier that day.

Critical to Mr. Stile's motion, at this point, one of the officers looks toward someone at the cell door and stretches out his arm. After a momentary delay, a left hand and arm appear on the left side of the screen and a small device, appearing somewhat like a cellphone, is handed to one of the officers inside the cell. Shortly thereafter the officers apply three electroshocks to Mr. Stile using the device.

Mr. Stile is convinced that the arm and hand belong to Corrections Officer Smith and that she is lying about whether she handed the electroshock device to the other...