United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO
DENNIS SAYLOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action arises out of an alleged attack on a prisoner by a
correctional officer at the Massachusetts Correctional
Institution at Norfolk (“MCI-Norfolk”). In his
second amended complaint, plaintiff Jason Latimore asserts
claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 12 § 11I, and state tort law. The second
amended complaint alleges that on November 2, 2011, defendant
Vincent Poon repeatedly slammed the trap door to
Latimore's cell on Latimore's hands and arms,
severely injuring him. It further alleges that defendant John
Houle, who was the lieutenant on duty, failed to report the
incident or to reprimand Poon for his actions. Finally, it
alleges that defendant William Grossi, the security director,
failed to investigate Latimore's grievances or arrange
for medical treatment.
has filed two motions for leave to amend the complaint a
third time. The proposed complaint is 44 pages long, with 76
pages of exhibits; it seeks to add 15 new defendants and a
variety of new theories and claims. For the reasons set forth
below, the motions will be denied.
August 22, 2014, Latimore filed suit in this court against
the Department of Corrections and against individual
defendants Houle, Poon, Fernando Pontes, and David Clancy in
both their individual and official capacities. (Docket No.
1). The complaint originally alleged five causes of action: a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment (Count One); a claim under
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12 § 11I for excessive force in
violation of Article XXVI of the Massachusetts Declaration of
Rights (Count Two); a claim for common-law battery (Count
Three); a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress (Count Four); and a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for a failure to supervise (Count Five).
29, 2015, the four individual defendants filed a joint motion
to dismiss various counts in the complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docket No.
17). On November 13, 2015, the Court issued a memorandum and
order dismissing all counts against the individual defendants
in their official capacities; all counts against Pontes and
Clancy; and Counts One through Four against Houle. (Docket
on November 30, 2015, Latimore filed his first motion to
amend his complaint to add a claim for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. (Docket No. 30).
Although the Court had already ruled on the motion to
dismiss, in light of his pro se status, the Court
granted the motion to amend on February 5, 2016. (Docket No.
25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order stating that
“[e]xcept for good cause shown, no motions seeking
leave to add new parties or to amend the pleadings to assert
new claims or defenses may be filed after [July 10,
2016].” (Docket No. 74). The deadline for amendments to
pleadings has not been changed since. The scheduling order
also set a deadline for completing all discovery, other than
expert discovery, of September 17, 2016. (Id.).
14, 2016, attorney Bronwyn Roberts entered an appearance
pro bono on behalf of Latimore. (Docket No. 107).
Because attorney Roberts needed time to adequately prepare,
the Court issued an amended scheduling order resetting
deadlines for discovery and the filing of dispositive
motions. (Docket No. 119). The amended scheduling order did
not extend the deadline for filing motions to amend the
September 9, 2016, while represented by counsel, Latimore
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
(Docket No. 122). The proposed second amended complaint added
three new defendants who were Department of Corrections staff
(Grossi, Gary Roden, and Stephanie Collins) and one new
defendant who was a nurse at UMass Correctional Health (Beth
Chamberlain). It also added new claims relating to alleged
inadequate health care, retaliation for the bringing of this
action, and invasion of privacy. Although the deadline for
amending the pleadings had expired, the Court granted the
motion in part on October 3, 2016, denying amendment only as
to the emotional distress claim with respect to defendant
Roden. (Docket No. 125).
three weeks later, the parties jointly moved to extend the
discovery deadlines. (Docket No. 130). The Court granted the
motion on November 1, 2016. (Docket Nos. 131, 133). Latimore
then moved to fire his pro bono counsel, attorney
Roberts, and proceed pro se, which the magistrate
judge granted on December 28, 2016. (Docket No. 147).
February 3, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing all
claims against defendants Chamberlain and Collins. (Docket
No. 171). At that point, the only defendants remaining were
Houle, Poon, and Grossi.
Court extended discovery deadlines again on February 3, 2017.
(Docket No. 169). Latimore further moved to extend the
discovery deadlines on May 3, 2017. (Docket No. 241). The
Court granted his motion and set a deadline of July 14, 2017,
for fact discovery (Docket No. 253). The Court later set a
deadline of February 1, 2018, for filing dispositive motions.
(Docket No. 343).
November 17, 2017, Latimore filed a motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint, but did not attach a proposed
amended complaint. (Docket No. 345). He then filed a
duplicative motion on November 27, 2017, that did include a
proposed amended complaint. (Docket No. 350). The proposed
amended complaint adds 15 new defendants and ...