Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DAVID W. GOODRICH, Plaintiff, v. MAURICE R. OUELLETTE, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 9-536-P-S ) ) ) )

RECOMMENDED DECISION David Goodrich was incarcerated at the York County Jail from August 7, 2009, to January 11, 2010, on OUI-related charges. During this time, Mr. Goodrich claims that he was denied access to a well-stocked prison law library. Goodrich has not been readmitted to the Jail since January 11, 2010, and on January 19, 2010, we received a change of address notice from Goodrich indicating that he had been moved to a correctional facility in Middleton, Massachusetts. (Doc. No. 29). On June 29, 2010, we received another change of address notice from Goodrich, suggesting he had been moved to Lawrence, Massachusetts. (Doc. No. 47). I entered an order granting defendants' motion to compel in light of Goodrich's failure to respond to discovery on July 1, 2010, (Doc. No. 50), and Goodrich apparently received that order because he filed an objection on July 9, 2010. Since that date mail sent to both the Middleton and the Lawrence addresses has been returned marked "inmate not here." (See Doc. Nos. 53, 58, 59 & 61). Prior to July 9 Goodrich actively litigated this case, including participating in a telephonic discovery conference and filing numerous objections to orders I entered relating to discovery. On July 28, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 54). Their certificate of service indicates that they mailed a copy of the motion to the Lawrence,

Massachusetts address provided by the plaintiff. No response has been filed. I now recommend that the court grant the motion. Summary Judgment Standard
"Summary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" United States v. Union Bank For Sav. & Inv. (Jordan), 487 F.3d 8, 17 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)). I draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Goodrich, but where he bears the burden of proof, he "'must present definite, competent evidence' from which a reasonable jury could find in [his] favor." Id. (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 960 F.2d 200, 204 (1st Cir. 1992)). Goodrich has not presented any evidence in defense of the motion for summary judgment. However, this court, may not automatically grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the opposing party failed to comply with a local rule requiring a response within a certain number of days. Rather, the court must determine whether summary judgment is "appropriate," which means that it must assure itself that the moving party's submission shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Advisory Committee Note to Rule 56 ("Where the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented."). NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 7 -8 (1st Cir. 2002).

Undisputed Material Facts The defendants have offered four undisputed material facts. Goodrich was detained at the Jail from August 8, 2009, to January 12, 2010, on OUI-related charges. (SMF,

Download MJK_08202010_2-09cv536_Goodrich_v_Ouellette_AFFIRMED_09132010.pdf

Maine Law