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.

Negron v. Turco

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

May 26, 2017

JOSE L. NEGRON, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS TURCO, III, ABBE NELLIGAN, COLETTE GOGUEN, and LUIS MELENDEZ, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Before the Court is remaining[1] defendants Thomas Turco, III, Abbe Nelligan, Colette Goguen, and Luis Melendez's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43), plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3), plaintiff's motions for leave to file an amended or supplemental complaint (ECF Nos. 69 and 70), motions relating to discovery (ECF Nos. 51, 61 and 62) and a renewed motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 63). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motions to amend and supplement will be allowed in part and denied in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied as moot, plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction will be denied as moot, plaintiff's discovery-related motions will be denied without prejudice, and plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel will be denied.

         II. Procedural History

         On October 17, 2016, pro se prisoner plaintiff Luis Negron filed a voluminous complaint (ECF No. 1) against defendants Thomas Turco, III, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Thomas Dickhaut, Deputy Commissioner Department of Corrections, Kelly Ryan, Superintendent of MCI Shirley, Lois Russo, Superintendent of MCI Concord, Colletee Goguen, Superintendent of MCI Gardner, Abbe Nelligan, Deputy of Classification, and Luis Mendez, Internal Perimeter Commander. Along with his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3).

         On October 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 11) On November 16, 2016, the Court allowed the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, assessed an initial filing fee, denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, and allowed the motion to amend the complaint. The amended complaint was docketed, and the exhibits to the complaint were incorporated by reference into the amended complaint. The plaintiff was ordered to notify the court prior to service of the complaint if he did not intend the exhibits to be incorporated into the amended complaint. No objection was filed.

         On February 8, 2017, defendants Turco, Nelligan, Goguen, and Melendez filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 21, 2017, plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46).

         On April 14, 2017, with leave of court, defendants Turco, Nelligan, Goguen, and Melendez responded to the motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 65).

         On April 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a “stipulation of dismissal” of defendants Thomas Dickhaut, Kelly Ryan, and Lois Russo, substantially narrowing the scope of this action. That same day, plaintiff filed a Motion For Leave to File Supplemental Response to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 68).

         On May 11, 2017 plaintiff filed motions for leave to file supplemental amended complaint and for leave to file a supplemental complaint. (ECF Nos. 69 and 70). The remaining defendants opposed the motions. (ECF Nos. 71 and 72).

         III. Discussion

         A. Plaintiff's Motions to Amend and Supplement the Complaint Are Allowed-in- Part and Denied-in-Part.

         At this stage of the proceedings, under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff “may amend [his] pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Similarly, “[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d).

         The defendants oppose the motions to amend and supplement the complaint, referring to their motion to dismiss the action. One of the grounds raised in the motion to dismiss (and in their opposition to the motion to amend) is that the complaint and proposed amended complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agrees in principle that the current complaint and proposed second amended complaint largely do not comply with basic pleading requirements of the Federal Rules. Instead, they are densely worded, rambling narratives concerning events spanning multiple institutions and persons, making it extremely difficult for the Court to discern the contours of the claims. It is not surprising that the defendants have had difficulty in culling the claims for purposes of their motion to dismiss. The ...


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.