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.

Holloman v. Clarke

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

February 28, 2017

Tajuan Holloman, Plaintiff,
v.
Harold Clarke, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge

         This case involves claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate, pro se litigant Tajuan Holloman (“plaintiff”) against 26 defendants. Pending before the Court is 1) plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum to be served on Fiona DiGiandomenico, a personnel officer for the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and 2) a motion to strike that motion brought by a group of 20 of the defendants (“defendants”).

         Plaintiff seeks to issue a subpoena duces tecum to discover the proper substitute party for defendants Harold Clarke and James Bender during their absences from positions held with the DOC during all times relevant to his claims. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum will be denied and defendants' motion to strike will be allowed.

         I. Background

         Tajuan Holloman is an inmate currently incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Shirley, Massachusetts (“MCI-Shirley”). Holloman's claims arise from events that occurred while he was a pretrial detainee at the Correctional Institution in Concord, Massachusetts, and, later, while detained at MCI-Shirley.

         In June, 2014, Holloman filed a complaint in this Court against 26 defendants. All defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. They are state employees and prison officials allegedly involved in 1) the transfer of plaintiff from the Nashua Street Jail in Boston, Massachusetts, to MCI-Concord and/or 2) his treatment as a pretrial detainee. In January, 2016, this Court entered a Memorandum and Order, dismissing Holloman's claims against Nick Palodian, Thomas Tocci and f/n/u Wendover relating to interference with legal mail and denial of access to the courts because Holloman failed to show good cause why the claims should not be dismissed. In September, 2016, this Court dismissed plaintiff's claims against Bruce Gelb, Amy Owens and Jeffrey Daigneault for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted but preserved his claims for excessive force against Aaron Gill and for failure to intervene against Lieutenant Ferrarra and Frank Maine. In February, 2017, this Court dismissed all claims against defendant David Deakin.

         In July, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a subpeona duces tecum on Fiona DiGiandomenico, a personnel officer for the DOC. The following month, 20 of the defendants filed a joint motion to strike that motion.[1] These motions are the subjects of this memorandum.

         II. Plaintiff's Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum and Defendant's Motion to Strike

         A. Legal Standards

         1. Subpoena Duces Tecum

         A subpoena duces tecum issued to a non-party, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, is subject to the “relevance” requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). EEOC v. Tex. Roadhouse, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D. Mass. 2014). Accordingly, courts must “balance the burden of proposed discovery against the likely benefit”. Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 991, 400 (1st Cir. 2005). Factors include plaintiff's need for the information and “the availability of other means of obtaining it”. Tex. Roadhouse, 303 F.R.D. at 2.

         2. Substitution of Parties

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) provides for the automatic substitution of parties sued in their official capacities when they no longer hold their positions. See, e.g., Visiting Nurse Ass'n Gregoria Auffant, Inc. v. Thompson, 447 F.3d 68, 71 n.2 (1st Cir. 2006) (substituting the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy G. Thompson, for the then-current Secretary, Michael O. Leavitt, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d)). Such substitution occurs with or without an order from the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).

         B. ...


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.