Stile v. US Marshals Service, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
James Stile
v. Civil No. 15-cv-494-SM
Strafford County Department
of Corrections et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 9, 2016, this Court issued an Order (Doc. No. 7_
granting plaintiff James Stile’s leave to file an amended
complaint, with respect to his claims of a First Amendment
violation relating to incoming mail at the Strafford County
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) in 2013. Before the court
are Stile’s Response (Doc. No. 13) that Order, and Motion to
Amend the Complaint (Doc. No. 28). The proposed amendments to
the complaint (Doc. Nos. 13 and 28) are here for preliminary
review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(1).
Motion to Amend Standard
Because Stile is appearing pro se, the court construes his
1Defendants who have been served in this action are: the
Strafford County Department of Corrections (“SCDC”); SCDC
Superintendent Bruce Pelkie; SCDC Assistant Superintendent Jake
Collins; SCDC Medical Director Tracey Warren; and SCDC Officers
Robert Farrell, Laura Noseworthy, and Christopher Brackett.
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 9

2
pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). In general, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), leave to amend
is to be “freely given.” Leave to amend may be denied, however,
if the proposed complaint amendment would be futile. See
Todisco v. Verizon Comm., Inc., 497 F.3d 95, 98 (1st Cir. 2007);
Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1994).
To make an assessment as to the futility of a proposed
amendment, this court applies the standard for preliminary
review of claims in this case. The court may dismiss Stile’s
complaint, or any part or amendment to the complaint, if it
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b)(1); LR 4.3(d)(1)(A). To
determine if the pleading states a claim, the court first
disregards plaintiff’s legal conclusions and then considers
whether the factual content in the pleading and inferences
reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a claim to
relief. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st
Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Background
After the initial preliminary review of this matter, this
court dismissed many of the claims asserted in Stile’s Complaint
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 9

3
(Doc. No. 1). See June 27, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 14) (approving
May 9, 2016 R. & R. (“May 9 R&R”) (Doc. No. 6)). The court also
directed the SCDC defendants to respond to claims that those
defendants: initially placed Stile in segregation in the SCDC D-
Pod, without a hearing, in violation of his Fourteenth right to
due process; violated Stile’s federal constitutional and
statutory rights to religious freedom; and violated Stile’s
Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. See May 9,
2016 Order (Doc. No. 7) (“May 9 Order”).
For reasons stated in the May 9 R&R, the court found that
the assertions in Stile’s complaint, relating to the handling of
his incoming mail at the SCDC in 2013, failed to state any claim
upon which relief could be granted. The court, therefore,
granted Stile leave to amend his complaint to assert facts
sufficient to state First Amendment claims relating to incoming
mail at the SCDC in 2013. Stile filed a response to the May 9
Order, relating to the incoming mail claims.2
2The May 9 Order also specifically granted Stile leave to
amend his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim
alleging a lack of access to drinking water in February 2013 and
to state a claim naming individual federal agents of the U.S.
Marshals Service who may have violated Stile’s Fifth Amendment
due process rights through their involvement in Stile’s initial
placement in D-Pod at the SCDC. Stile has not filed any
proposed complaint amendment relating to either of those issues.
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 9

4
Discussion
I. Return of Incoming Mail at SCDC in 2013
Stile alleges that in 2013, while he was at the SCDC, the
U.S. Marshals Service temporarily transferred him to other
facilities. Stile alleges that, during those temporary
transfers, which on one occasion lasted from July to September
2013, he received mail at the SCDC, and SCDC officials returned
mail addressed to him to its senders, in lieu of holding it for
him, as he had requested. Stile claims that personal and legal
mail was affected, but points only to several items of court
mail sent to him in 2013 that had been returned to the court as
undelivered.3 Stile states that the SCDC knew where he was, and
that he would return to the SCDC, when SCDC employees returned
mail in lieu of holding it. In response to the May 9 Order
3Documents mailed by the court to Stile on August 7 and
September 24, 2013, in Stile v. Pelkie, No. 13-cv-071-PB
(D.N.H.), were returned to the court marked “return to sender
attempted-not known unable to forward” and “RTS attempted not
known.” See id. Notice (Aug. 19, 2013), ECF No. 6; id. Notice
(Oct. 1, 2013), ECF No. 10. The court resent those documents to
Stile at the SCDC, and Stile received them on October 3, 2013.
In addition, this court’s review of PACER for all cases in which
Stile was a party in 2013 indicates that two letters sent to
Stile at the SCDC in April and September 2013 by the District of
Maine were returned as undeliverable. See “Mail (Notice of
Correspondence #205),” United States v. Stile, No. 1:2011-cr-
00185-JAW-1 (D. Me., docketed Oct. 7, 2013), ECF No. 237;
“Returned Mail,” Stile v. Cumberland Cty. Jail, No. 2:12-cv-260-
JAW (D. Me., docketed Apr. 17, 2013), ECF No. 41.
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 4 of 9

5
(Doc. No. 7), directing Stile to name individuals who, while
Stile was transferred out of the SCDC, knew or should have known
where he was and that the transfer was only temporary, Stile
named one individual, SCDC Lt. Lee, who, Stile states, was “in
charge of mail distribution.”
Stile alleges that the SCDC’s failure to hold his mail for
him violated his First Amendment right to receive incoming mail
while in pretrial detention. Although an inmate has a First
Amendment right to the “‘free flow of incoming . . . mail,’”
that right is necessarily limited in the prison context. Klimas
v. Lantz, 531 F. App’x 6, 7 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).
Institutional policies restricting the receipt of mail in
prisons or pretrial detention facilities are valid if the policy
is “reasonably related” to legitimate penological interests, and
“[is] not an exaggerated response to prison concerns.” Turner
v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90-91 (1987) (internal quotation marks
omitted); accord Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006).
A jail has an interest in avoiding excessive demands on its
limited staff and space resources. There is a rational
relationship between the practice of returning incoming mail
sent to an inmate who is not at the facility at the time the
letter is received, and an institutional interest in avoiding
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 5 of 9

6
the excess resource demands of holding a temporarily-absent
inmate’s mail until the inmate returns. Further, Stile has
asserted no facts demonstrating that the practice of returning
his mail, in lieu of holding it for his return, was an
exaggerated response to the SCDC’s interest in protecting its
resources.
Moreover, Stile has not alleged facts showing that he
suffered any injury in any legal case because his mail was not
held. He has also not shown that he could not alleviate or
eliminate the impact of the practice by notifying courts or
other correspondents regarding his whereabouts when he spent any
extended periods of time in other facilities. Stile provided
such notice to the District of Maine in Stile v. Somerset Cty.,
No. 1:13-cv-00248-JAW (D. Me.), in advance of a two month
transfer that lasted from July through September 2013. See
“Notice of Change of Address,” id. (D. Me., docketed July 9,
2013), ECF No. 5. Without more allegations suggesting that the
practice of returning mail was not reasonably related to a
legitimate penological objective, the allegations in the
original complaint (Doc. No. 1) and in the response (Doc. No.
13) do not state a claim as to whether the SCDC practice of
returning mail to the sender during Stile’s absences from the
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 6 of 9

7
SCDC violated Stile’s First Amendment rights while he in
pretrial detention. Therefore, the court should not allow a
First Amendment claim regarding the SCDC’s handling of Stile
incoming mail to proceed in this action at this time, and Lee
should not be added as a defendant.
II. Mail Handling at FCI-Fort Dix in 2016 (Doc. No. 28)
Stile has asked for a court ruling on whether the handling
of his mail by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at FCI-Fort
Dix-East, his current place of incarceration, is consistent with
federal law and regulations. See Doc. No. 28. Stile has not
pleaded facts that would warrant adding any claim arising from
the facts alleged in Document No. 28 to this action.
“A party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent
or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an
opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). “Despite the broad
language of Rule 18(a),” however, a plaintiff may join multiple
defendants in a single action only if the plaintiff asserts at
least one claim to relief against each of them that arises out
of the same transaction or occurrence and presents questions of
law or fact common to all. 7 Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1655 (3d ed. 2001). “Unrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits,” in part
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 7 of 9

8
“to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees,” and
that prisoners do not avoid exposure to the “three strikes”
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Without commenting on the merits of Stile’s proposed claims
relating to the handling of his mail at FCI-Fort Dix-East, the
district judge should deny the motion to add those issues to
this case. No BOP agent or employee is a defendants to any
claims here, and any claims that may be actionable concerning
mail handling at FCI-Fort Dix-East, if any, do not arise out of
any transaction or occurrence at issue here. Accordingly, the
district judge should deny the motion to amend (Doc. No. 28),
without prejudice to Stile’s ability to file a new action
asserting the claims referenced therein, in a court of competent
jurisdiction and venue.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends
that the district judge decline to amend the complaint to add a
First Amendment claim concerning incoming mail to Stile at the
SCDC in 2013, and decline to join SCDC Lt. Lee as a defendant to
this action. Additionally, the magistrate judge recommends that
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 8 of 9

9
the district judge deny Stile’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 28),
regarding the handling of his mail at FCI-Fort Dix-East in 2016,
without prejudice to Stile’s ability to plead a similar claim in
a new case, in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue.
Any objection to this report and recommendation must be
filed within 14 days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file an objection within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. See Garayalde-Rijos v. Muni. of Carolina, 747 F.3d 15-
21-22 (1st Cir. 2014).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
October 31, 2016
cc: James Stile, pro se
Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.
Case 1:15-cv-00494-SM Document 44 Filed 10/31/16 Page 9 of 9