Opinion
CV-21-0346
05-06-2022
MARK GRAHAM Plaintiff v. JOHN COSTELLO, KEVIN JOYCE, DOCTOR "EDDY" AND ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES Defendants
ORDER
JOHN O'NEIL JR. JUSTICE, MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
Before the Court are eighteen pending "motions" filed by pro se Plaintiff Mark Graham ("Graham") and one pending Motion filed by Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce and Cumberland County Sheriffs Office ("CCSO") employee, Captain John Costello ("collectively CCSO Defendants"). This order is meant to provide clarity to the parties regarding the status of this case and set Plaintiff Graham's remaining Eighth Amendment claims on a path toward resolution.
First the Court will address CCSO Defendants' Second Motion to Amend their Answer, and then tackle Mr. Graham's outstanding "motions."
I. CCSO Defendants' Second Motion to Amend
On March 31st, 2022, the CCSO Defendants filed a second motion to amend their answer after having their first motion to amend granted. See Order, Docket No. CV-21-346 (Mar. 21, 2022). This second motion seeks the addition of an affirmative defense to their original answer. Specifically, the CCSO Defendants wish to add the following language as paragraph H in the "affirmative defenses" section on page two of their answer: "Plaintiffs recoverable damages, if any, are capped or limited by the provision of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S, § 8101, et seq, or any other applicable federal or state statutory limitations on damages." (Pl.'s Second Mot. Amend. 1.) .
Graham has filed many documents with this Court since the CCS0 Defendants filed their second motion to amend - none of which can be characterized as an objection. Thus, consistent with the Law Court's instruction that "leave to amend shall be freely granted," CCSO Defendants' second motion is granted. Barkley v. Goodwill Home Assocs., 495 A.2d 1238,1240 (Me. 1985).
II. Graham's Outstanding Motions
Since Graham filed his complaint with this Court on September 20th, 2021, the Court has received multiple "motions" from Graham with various captions. Some are captioned as motions "for alternative service," some are titled "motion for answer/response" and a few have other designations. After a careful review of each filing, the Court determines that none of Graham's filings are substantive in nature and thus require no consideration from the opposing parties or this Court. All of Graham's filings are better characterized as "letters" which ask the Clerk to perform certain administrative tasks-like sending opposing counsel copies of filings--on Graham's behalf. These tasks are not the Clerk's responsibility.
Graham's mischaracterization of his filings presents a problem because internal court procedure demands that every "motion" filed with the Court be processed in a specific fashion that is more onerous and time intensive than processing those filings labeled as a "letter" or some other type of "correspondence". As a result, Graham's voluminous filings have caused many administrative problems for the Clerk's office and this Court.
Accordingly, the Court denies all eighteen of Graham's "motions" filed prior to April 4th, 2022 and directs the Clerk to docket any filing received since April 4th-and any future filing-as . "correspondence".
April 4th is used as the date delineating the change in docketing procedure because it is the last date that a filing by Graham was docketed by the Clerk as a "motion."
If Graham intends to file a motion that is substantive in nature, or related to the scheduling order issued herewith, then he must specifically state the filing's purpose on its first page. If such a statement is included, then the Clerk may present the filing to the Court to determine whether it should be docketed as "correspondence" or as a "motion." Additionally, if Graham intends any document to be considered a motion, he must provide copies to opposing counsel and certify to this Court that he has done so. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the motion being docketed as "correspondence," regardless of its contents.
III. Current Case Status
As of the date of this Order, Graham has filed his complaint, and the Defendants (both CCSO Defendants and Armor Correctional Health Services ("Armor")) have filed their respective answers. Armor then filed a Motion to Dismiss Graham's allegations which was granted in part and denied in part. See Order, Docket No. CV-21-346 (Mar. 21, 2022). What remains for adjudication by this Court are Graham's Eighth Amendment claims against all Defendants.
This relatively straightforward procedural posture does not match the voluminous court file that has accumulated in this case, which is largely comprised of Graham's "motions." The Court is concerned that not all parties have received copies of these "motions" and thus invites counsel for the CCSO Defendants and Armor to visit the Clerk's office to review the file should they wish to do so.
Further litigation revolving Graham's claims shall proceed pursuant to the Scheduling Order issued concurrent with this order. .
Entry is:
Defendants Kevin Joyce and John Costello's Second Motion to Amend is Granted. Plaintiff Mark Graham's eighteen pending motions are Denied.
The Clerk is directed to docket any further filings of Mr. Graham as "correspondence" unless otherwise directed by the Court.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).