Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morales v. Spencer

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 8, 2014

MIGUEL A. MORALES, Plaintiff,
v.
LUIS S. SPENCER, Commissioner, BRUCE GELB, Superintendent, OSVALDO VIDAL, Deputy Superintendent of Operations, STEVE CARRIER, Administrative Captain, and D. LEABMAN, Mailroom Officer, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS

F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV, District Judge.

This is a civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff Miguel A. Morales, an inmate at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, has filed suit against various prison officials contending that they violated his constitutional rights by confiscating as contraband multiple art books because the books contain nudity and sexually explicit material.

Plaintiff has filed eleven motions seeking joinder of this action with another suit he has filed in this Court, a permanent injunction, a declaratory judgment, and a default judgment. For the reasons set forth below, those motions will be denied.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

According to the complaint, Morales is an inmate at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley, Massachusetts. On June 11, 2013, the mailroom officer at that facility delivered to Morales a contraband slip indicating that prison officials had confiscated two books that Morales had ordered entitled Fairy Song and the Art of Roca. On June 21, 2013, Morales filed a grievance, contending that he was entitled to possess the books because they are art books and because similar books had been allowed into the facility, which was denied. On July 18, 2013, he appealed the denial of his grievance, contending that books were educational and, alternatively, that the ban on pornography in prisons should be removed. That grievance was denied. Morales also wrote a letter to Bruce Gelb, the Superintendent of Souza-Baranowski, about his grievance.

On August 17, 2013, Morales received a second contraband slip from the mailroom officer, informing him that a book that he had ordered entitled Blasphemy: Art That Offends had been confiscated. Morales wrote to the Deputy Superintendent of Operations, explaining why he believed he should be allowed the book, which was denied. On September 2, 2013, despite having had his grievance privileges suspended, Morales filed an informal grievance about the confiscation of Blasphemy.

A February 19, 2014 letter from the Superintendent of Souza-Baranowski, Bruce Gelb, explains that the books are considered contraband due to "pictures of full and graphic nudity, exposed genitalia, and severe body mutilation" and therefore not in compliance with the policies of the Department of Correction. (Dkt. No. 15-2).

B. Procedural Background

On September 30, 2013, Morales filed a complaint in this Court, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for denial of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint named as defendants Luis S. Spencer, Commissioner of the Department of Correction; Bruce Gelb, Superintendent of Souza-Baranowski; Osvaldo Vidal, Deputy Superintendent of Operations; Steve Carrier, Administrative Captain; and D. Leabman, Mailroom Officer.

On April 9, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for improper service. On May 14, 2014, after finding that plaintiff had failed properly to serve defendants, this Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and extended the period for service of process until June 13, 2014. The Court later granted plaintiff an extension until July 28, 2014, to complete service.

On March 3, March 7, March 18, March 31, April 7, April 22, April 28, and May 22, 2014, plaintiff filed eleven motions in total. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29). Defendants, who have not yet been served, have not entered an appearance in this case and have not filed any opposition to the motions.

II. Analysis

Plaintiff's motions are somewhat difficult to comprehend and often duplicative of one another. However, he appears to seek joinder of this action with another that he filed, a permanent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.