United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
JOSE L. NEGRON, Plaintiff,
THOMAS TURCO, III, ABBE NELLIGAN, COLETTE GOGUEN, and LUIS MELENDEZ, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is remaining 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.
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).
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.
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).
April 14, 2017, with leave of court, defendants Turco,
Nelligan, Goguen, and Melendez responded to the motion for
preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 65).
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.
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).
Plaintiff's Motions to Amend and Supplement the Complaint
Are Allowed-in- Part and
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).
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 ...