GLADU v. MAGNUSSON et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
) 	1:22-cv-00134-JDL
MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, JAMES 	)
HANCOX, RANDALL LIBERTY, and 	)
JOHN DOES 1-7, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Nicholas A. Gladu, who is incarcerated at the Maine State Prison and
proceeding pro se, filed a seven-count Amended Complaint on May 27, 2022 (ECF No.
11), 	against 	Matthew 	Magnusson, 	James 	Hancox, 	and 	Randall 	Liberty—as
individuals and in their official capacities with the Maine Department of Corrections
(the “Department”)—alleging constitutional injuries actionable under 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1983 (West 2024) among other claims. The named Defendants1 move to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 54). They contend in part
that several of Gladu’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of an
Order granting summary judgment to other Department officials in a prior case,
Gladu v. Waltz, No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS (the “prior Action”).2 See 2020 WL 6385618
1 Gladu also brings claims against seven unnamed Defendants—all Department officials.
2 The Defendants in the prior Action were Media Review Officers Gary Waltz and Casey Chadwick
and Grievance Review Officer Josh Black—all Department employees.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(D. Me. Oct. 30, 2020) (rec. dec.), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL
7344706 (D. Me. Dec. 14, 2020), aff’d, No. 21-1010, 2022 WL 20437774 (1st Cir. Oct.
24, 2022).
On August 31, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 64), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2024) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 	The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss after concluding, inter alia, that Gladu’s First
Amendment, equal protection, and due process claims are precluded by claims he
asserted in the prior Action that “present[ed] the same or sufficiently identical[]
causes of action.” 	ECF No. 64 at 5 (quotation marks omitted). 	Gladu objects to the
Recommended Decision’s conclusion that res judicata bars his claims as “erroneous
and clearly unsupported by facts and the Court’s own records.” ECF No. 79 at 2, ¶ 5.
Gladu 	does 	not 	otherwise 	contest 	the 	Recommended 	Decision’s 	findings 	or
recommendations.
After reviewing de novo “those portions of the [Recommended Decision] to
which objection [was] made,” I do not adopt the Recommended Decision to the extent
it advises dismissing Gladu’s First Amendment, equal protection, and due process
claims under the doctrine of res judicata. 	28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1). 	I accept the
Recommended Decision in all other respects.
I. BACKGROUND
The following facts about the instant case arise from the Amended Complaint.
I accept the well-pleaded facts from the Amended Complaint as true for the purpose
of deciding the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 	Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co.,
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
601 F.3d 9, 11 (1st Cir. 2010). 	The facts pertaining to the prior Action derive from
the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision (Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF
No. 	286) 	on 	the 	defendants’ 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	(Case 	No.
1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 197) in that case, which the District Court accepted and
the 	First 	Circuit affirmed on 	appeal. 	Because 	the 	objected-to 	portion 	of 	the
Recommended Decision in this case requires me to revisit the constitutional claims
asserted in the prior Action, background facts about those claims also draw on
Gladu’s complaint in the prior Action, as amended (Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF
Nos. 1, 37).
A. 	The Instant Case
Gladu is incarcerated at the Maine State Prison in Warren. Gladu is openly
gay and Department officials are aware of his sexual orientation.
On January 6, 2022, a used Playgirl magazine containing images of male
nudity was delivered to the Maine State Prison, addressed to Gladu. A Department
official, Casey Chadwick, reviewed the magazine and allowed it to be sent onward to
Gladu. 	The magazine never made it to Gladu’s cell. 	The Department reimbursed
Gladu for the missing magazine after confirming it had been lost while in the
Department’s custody and control. 	On February 24, 2022, four used Playgirl
magazines, sent by commercial distributors and addressed to Gladu, were delivered
to the Maine State Prison. 	Again, Gladu never received the magazines. 	Unlike
before, the Department official screening the magazines, Officer Reid, rejected them
outright, purportedly because they had been sent by non-approved vendors and were
received in used condition.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The Department’s policy governing publications sent to prisoners provides, in
relevant part:
1. 	Publications and other materials, including correspondence, sent to
prisoners are prohibited if they contain any of the following:
a. 	material that depicts or describes a nude child, the genitals, anus,
or buttocks of a child, or the chest of a female child;
b. 	material that depicts or describes any sexual act with, sexual
contact with, or sexual touching of an animal or child;
c. 	material 	that 	depicts 	or 	describes 	sexual 	violence,
sadomasochism, or bondage;
. . . .
e. 	material that depicts or implies the commission of any sexual act
involving penetration of the genitals, mouth or anus, regardless
of the genders of the persons involved;
. . . .
k. any 	other 	material 	that 	is 	determined 	by 	the 	Chief
Administrative Officer, or designee, to:
i) 	constitute a threat to safety, security, or the orderly
management of the facility;
ii) 	contain sexually explicit material which, by its nature,
poses a threat to the orderly management of the facility;
iii) 	facilitate criminal activity; or
iv) 	is 	substantially 	detrimental 	to 	a 	prisoner’s
rehabilitation, e.g. a sex offender receiving magazines
containing 	pictures 	of 	children 	in 	underwear 	or
otherwise not fully clothed.
. . . .
5. Magazines and newspapers may be received by prisoners only if they
are sent directly from publishers . . . or commercial distributors.
Books may be received by prisoners only if they are sent directly from
publishers 	or 	those 	commercial 	distributors 	approved 	by 	the
Commissioner, or designee. . . .
ECF No. 61-1 at 14-16.3
3 	Gladu moved for the Court to take judicial notice of the Department’s policy, last revised in
September 2018, governing the publications and other materials sent to prisoners (ECF No. 56), and
filed a copy of that policy with the Court (ECF No. 61-1). Magistrate Judge Nivison granted Gladu’s
motion conditionally, agreeing to take judicial notice of the policy “when it is relevant to an issue for
the Court’s consideration.” 	ECF No. 63. 	Because the Department’s policy is relevant to the
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Part of the Department’s justification for rejecting the four magazines—their
used condition—contradicted the Department’s recent past practice, as Chadwick had
allowed Gladu to receive a used publication less than two months earlier. 	When
Gladu inquired informally about the decision to screen the four magazines, Officer
Reid responded dismissively. 	On March 9, 2022, Gladu filed a complaint with
Defendant Magnusson, then the Maine State Prison warden, against Reid alleging
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
With 	his 	complaint 	against 	Reid 	pending, 	Gladu 	ordered 	several 	books
containing male nudity, this time from Department-approved vendors. 	Eight books
addressed to Gladu arrived at the Warren facility on March 16, 2022. Shortly after
their arrival, Gladu received a notification from the Department that the books had
been deemed contraband. On the same day he received the notice, Gladu submitted
a grievance form to the Department to complain that screening the books amounted
to arbitrary censorship. On March 21, 2022, a ninth book with images of male nudity
arrived at the Warren facility addressed to Gladu. 	Days later, Gladu received
notification from the Department that this latest book had been deemed contraband.
Gladu again submitted a grievance form challenging the Department’s decision as
arbitrary censorship. In response to the filings, Defendants Magnusson and Hancox
instructed a Department grievance review officer to dismiss Gladu’s grievances.
Gladu received a notice from the Department on April 25, 2022, that the books were
recommendation to dismiss Gladu’s First Amendment, equal protection, and due process claims, I
likewise take judicial notice of the policy for the purpose of deciding the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
rejected because 	they 	“constituted a threat 	to safety, 	security, 	or the orderly
management of the facility.” ECF No. 11 at 6, ¶ 63 (alteration omitted).
In the interim, on March 31, 2022, while Gladu was being moved to a
“segregation 	unit,” 	Department 	officials 	operating 	at 	Defendant 	Magnusson’s
instruction seized seven publications containing male nudity from Gladu’s cell. ECF
No. 11 at 5, ¶ 55. Chadwick previously authorized Gladu to have those publications,
and Gladu had possessed them for over a year before the Department confiscated
them. The Department did not fully investigate Gladu’s complaints of discrimination,
provide him with a meaningful opportunity to be heard about the incidents, or
reimburse him for the seized materials. Defendants Magnusson, Hancox, and Liberty
did not discipline the Department staff involved in screening and/or seizing the
materials and did not train staff to address or prevent discrimination.
B. 	The Prior Action
Gladu’s three constitutional claims in the prior Action arose from events that
transpired 	between 	April 	and 	September 	2018. 	Gladu 	alleged 	that 	several
Department officials violated his First Amendment rights as well as the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution by preventing him from receiving books he ordered or that others
ordered on his behalf because, among other reasons, they purportedly contained
content prohibited by Department policy. The defendants in the prior Action moved
for summary judgment as to all of Gladu’s claims, and the Magistrate Judge
recommended granting the motion, which conclusion the District Court adopted and
the First Circuit affirmed.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
1. 	First Amendment Claim
Gladu alleged that the defendants in the prior Action violated his First
Amendment rights by preventing him from receiving four books—ordered from a
Department-approved 	vendor—under 	the 	false 	pretense 	that 	those 	materials
included 	content 	prohibited 	by 	the 	Department’s 	Publications 	and 	Prohibited
Materials policy,4 namely depictions of “sexual violence, sadomasochism, or bondage,”
and “sexual act[s] involving penetration of the genitals, mouth, or anus.” 	Case No.
1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 17 (quoting Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS,
ECF No. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 2(c), (e)). 	He claimed that the defendants’ conduct constituted
unlawful censorship of male nudity with artistic value protected by the First
Amendment and permitted by Department policy.
The 	Recommended 	Decision 	in 	the 	prior 	Action 	determined 	that 	the
defendants there had denied Gladu access to the publications because they included
content prohibited by Department policy. The Magistrate Judge in the prior Action
also concluded that the Department’s policy was reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests, specifically the Department’s efforts to rehabilitate prisoners
4 The relevant portion of the policy that Gladu filed as an attachment to the complaint in the prior
Action is similar, but not identical, to the policy of which the Court has taken judicial notice in this
case. Compare Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 1-1, with Case No. 1:22-cv-00134, ECF No. 61-1
at 14-16. 	The Department policy at issue in this case was last amended in September 2018, two
months after Gladu filed the complaint in the prior Action with a copy of an earlier version of the
Department’s policy attached as Exhibit A. See supra note 3. Although both versions of the policy
restrict prisoner access to materials that depict and/or describe certain types of nudity and sexual acts
and require that materials be sent by Department-approved publishers or commercial distributors,
their sequencing of those requirements is distinct. Both versions also identify penological interests
that could justify the Department to retain materials that prisoners order including, but not limited
to, materials containing “sexually explicit material which, by its nature, poses a threat to the orderly
management of the facility” and materials that are “substantially detrimental to a prisoner’s
rehabilitation, e.g. a sex offender receiving magazines containing pictures of children in underwear or
otherwise not fully clothed.” Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 2(i)(ii), (iv); Case No.
1:22-cv-00134, ECF No. 61-1 at 15, ¶ 1(k)(ii), (iv).
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
and keep the prison population safe and secure. 	As a result, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that the defendants in the prior Action were entitled to summary judgment
on Gladu’s First Amendment claim, which conclusion the District Court adopted.
2. 	Equal Protection Claim
Gladu also claimed in the prior Action that the defendants’ actions violated the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In substance, Gladu alleged that
the defendants’ refusal to permit him access to content containing male nudity,
considered together with their general practice of allowing prisoners to receive
content containing female nudity, was unconstitutional disparate treatment that
discriminated based on sexual orientation. 	Although the defendants in the prior
Action moved for summary judgment on all of Gladu’s claims, neither the Magistrate
Judge’s decision that recommended granting the defendants’ motion nor the District
Court’s Order summarily affirming the Recommended Decision mentioned Gladu’s
equal protection claim or assessed its merits.
3. 	Due Process Claim
Finally, Gladu alleged that the defendants in the prior Action violated due
process by seizing the publications he ordered without first providing him notice and
an opportunity to be heard about whether the content in those publications was, in
fact, prohibited by Department policy. 	Gladu claimed that the defendants deprived
him of the opportunity to have other Department staff review the publications to
determine whether they contained prohibited content and quickly disposed of the
publications against Gladu’s wishes. Gladu also alleged that the defendants violated
his due process rights by dismissing his grievance for having failed to informally
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
resolve the matter, which, contrary to the defendants’ representations, he claimed to
have attempted. 	The Magistrate Judge recommended that the defendants in the
prior Action were entitled to summary judgment on Gladu’s Due Process claim, which
the District Court accepted and the First Circuit affirmed.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“To establish federal claim preclusion . . . , a party must establish that there is
‘(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) sufficient identicality between
the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) sufficient
identicality between the parties in the two suits.’” 	Foss v. E. States Exposition, 67
F.4th 462, 466 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Mass. Sch. of L. at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar
Ass’n, 	142 	F.3d 	26, 	37 	(1st 	Cir. 	1998)). 	Courts 	in 	the 	First 	Circuit 	take 	a
“transactional approach to determine whether the asserted causes of action are
sufficiently identical or related for claim preclusion purposes.” 	Airframe Sys., 601
F.3d at 15. 	Causes of action are sufficiently identical “if both sets of claims—those
asserted in the earlier action and those asserted in the subsequent action—derive
from a common nucleus of operative facts.” 	Silva v. City of New Bedford, 660 F.3d
76, 79 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Breneman v. U.S. ex rel. F.A.A., 381 F.3d 33, 38 (1st
Cir. 2004)). 	Courts determine whether a common nucleus of operative facts exists
“by looking to factors such as ‘whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or
motivation,’ ‘whether they form a convenient trial unit,’ and whether treating them
as a unit ‘conforms to the parties’ expectations.’” 	Airframe Sys., 601 F.3d at 15
(quoting In re Iannochino, 242 F.3d 36, 46 (1st Cir. 2001)). 	As to time, claim
preclusion prevents a party from relitigating claims “that were not brought earlier
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
but grew out of the same nucleus of operative facts and ‘should have been brought’ in
the earlier action.’” Aristud-González v. Gov’t Dev. Bank for P.R., 501 F.3d 24, 27 (1st
Cir. 2007) (quoting Porn v. Nat’l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1996)).
III. DISCUSSION
Gladu’s only particularized objection to the Recommended Decision is to the
conclusion that the final judgment on his First Amendment, due process, and equal
protection claims in the prior Action precludes his First Amendment, due process,
and equal protection claims in this case. The essence of Gladu’s objection is that the
second of the three prongs of the claim preclusion doctrine—“sufficient identicality
between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits”—is not satisfied
here. Foss, 67 F.4th at 466 (quoting Mass. Sch. of L. at Andover, 142 F.3d at 37). In
support, Gladu argues that he brought the claims in the prior Action to challenge the
accuracy of the determination by Department officials that publications he ordered
contained prohibited content including images of “sexual penetration, bondage,
BDSM, and alleged underage nudity.” 	ECF No. 79 at 2. 	By contrast, Gladu
characterizes his current claims as challenging different actions by Department
officials, namely: (1) preventing him from accessing certain publications containing
“mere adult nudity” not barred by Department policy; and (2) confiscating materials
containing that permissible content, which the Department had reviewed and
allowed him to possess for over a year before seizing it. ECF No. 79 at 3.
The Defendants disagree and contend instead that “the claims in Plaintiff’s
prior lawsuit regarding his access to pornography were broad, and the judgment
awarded to Defendants in that case bars subsequent claims ‘with respect to all or any
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action
arose.’” ECF No. 92 at 2 (quoting Porn, 93 F.3d at 34). According to the Defendants,
the relevant transaction is the “confiscation” of explicit publications, ECF No. 92 at
2, and any distinction between the types of pornography at issue in the two cases is
beside the point.
The Recommended Decision concludes that the claims in the two cases are
sufficiently similar to invoke the doctrine of claim preclusion because both sets of
claims challenge the same policy restricting prisoner access to “adult material” in
service of the same penological interests. ECF No. 64 at 6. For reasons I will explain,
and construing Gladu’s pleadings liberally, as I must, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), I conclude that his current First Amendment, due process, and equal
protection 	claims 	are 	not 	precluded 	by 	the 	judgment 	entered 	on 	similar 	but
distinguishable claims brought in the prior Action.
Gladu’s complaint in the prior Action included the following allegations:
 	“The 4 titles deemed prohibited content contained male nudity.” Case
No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶ 15.
 	“Under [Department] Policy . . . content containing nudity, regardless of
gender, is not prohibited.” Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 1 at 2,
¶ 16.
 	“Upon information and belief, Defendants Waltz and Chadwick falsely
claimed that said publications contained [m]aterial [that] dep[i]cts or
describes sexual violence, sadomasochism, or bondage and material
[that] depicts any sexual act involving penetration of the genitals,
mouth, or anus, regardless of the genders of the persons involved, to
unlawfully deprive and censor said material from the Plaintiff, because
that content contained material that conflicted with those Defendants’
personal 	beliefs 	(eg; 	gay 	oriented 	male 	nudity).” 	Case 	No.
1:18-cv-00275-GZS, ECF No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 17 (quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
These allegations reveal that the motivation underlying the allegedly unlawful
conduct in the prior Action is distinct from the impetus for the Defendants’ actions
here. 	Gladu’s claims in the prior Action were premised on the theory that the
Department’s purported reason for prohibiting him from having explicit materials
was pretextual—an excuse motivated by sex-based discrimination, not a legitimate
penological interest. 	Although Gladu alleges a similar discriminatory animus here,
he 	does 	not 	claim 	that 	the 	Department 	used 	the 	content 	restrictions 	in 	its
“Publications and Prohibited Material” policy as cover for its allegedly unlawful
conduct. 	Instead, Gladu asserts that the Department legitimized decisions to
withhold and confiscate certain publications from him either based on a different
pretext—because materials were not sent by approved vendors or were received in
used condition—or, in some instances, without offering any explanation about why
certain publications had been deemed contraband. 	Accordingly, Gladu’s current
action does not challenge the Department’s application of the same portions of its
policy implicated by his claims in the prior Action, namely those restricting prisoner
access to a narrow set of sexually explicit images. 	In short, Gladu alleges that the
Department had distinct pretextual motives for the conduct underlying his claims in
this case and in the prior Action.
Time is also on Gladu’s side in the claim preclusion analysis. 	All relevant
events in this case occurred between January and April of 2022, whereas the events
underlying Gladu’s claims in the prior Action occurred in 2018. 	Gladu brought the
prior Action that same year, and the Court granted summary judgment to the
defendants in that case in December 2020. In a similar vein, the origins of his claims
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
in this case are distinct from the alleged misconduct underlying his claims in the prior
Action. 	As before, Gladu now alleges that the Department unlawfully screened
publications he ordered and prevented him from ever possessing them. 	Here,
however, 	Gladu 	alleges 	further 	that 	the 	Department 	confiscated 	publications
containing male nudity from his cell that an official had previously reviewed and
allowed Gladu to keep when he was moved temporarily to a segregation unit.
Moreover, Gladu alleges that the Department’s review and approval of the material
it later confiscated occurred after he brought the claims in the prior Action. 	These
distinctions in time and origin work against concluding that Gladu’s claims here and
in the prior Action “arise out of the same transaction, seek redress for essentially the
same basic wrong, and rest on the same or a substantially similar factual basis.”
Porn, 93 F.3d at 34 (emphasis added). 	Gladu could not have known the facts
necessary to bring the claims made in this case when he filed the prior Action. It is,
therefore, not reasonable to expect that he would have raised his current claims in a
case 	that 	ended 	before 	the 	similar, 	yet 	factually 	distinguishable, 	conduct 	he
challenges here occurred. Cf. id. at 37 (considering the “parties’ expectations” as part
of the claim preclusion analysis).
In sum, the distinct timing, origin, and motivations at play in this case and in
the prior Action suffice to conclude that the two sets of claims are not so identical to
support the dismissal of Gladu’s First Amendment, due process, and equal protection
claims here under the doctrine of res judicata. That the judgment in the prior Action
did not specifically decide the merits of Gladu’s earlier equal protection claim lends
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
additional support for concluding that his equal protection claim here deserves a
merits review.
IV. OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
Finally, also under advisement is a raft of motions filed by Gladu related to the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss: (1) an Objection (ECF No. 85) to the Court’s Order
(ECF 	No. 	81) 	denying 	Gladu’s 	Motion 	to 	Extend 	Time 	to 	Respond 	to 	the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 78); (2) a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing on
Gladu’s Purported Access to His Legal File (ECF No. 88); a Motion for an Order
Directing the Defendants to Secure/Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 89); and (4) a Motion
for Clarification (ECF No. 93). Because Gladu has already brought an objection (ECF
No. 79) that the Court afforded him over three months to file—far longer than the
customary fourteen days allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
District’s Local Rules—his renewed request for additional time to object is denied as
moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); D. Me. Local R. 72.1(a). As to Gladu’s motions for
an evidentiary hearing and for an order directing the Defendants to secure and
preserve evidence, I see no basis for the requested relief, and the motions are denied.
However, I note that as this case proceeds beyond the initial pleading stage, the
parties will be bound by the rules of discovery, see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which,
in cases brought by prisoners alleging civil rights violations, “shall ordinarily be
completed within 4 months of the issuance of the scheduling order,” D. Me. Local R.
16.1(b)(4). The parties may request a scheduling conference to, among other things,
discuss issues about preserving discoverable information and develop a discovery
plan, after which a scheduling order shall issue. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2)-(3); see
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
also D. Me. Local R. 16.2. Gladu’s motion for clarification, by which he sought leave
to submit additional information pertinent to his objection to the Recommended
Decision, is denied as moot.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 64) is hereby REJECTED IN PART as to the
proposed disposition for Counts I, II, and III, and ACCEPTED IN PART in all other
respects. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED IN PART
as to Counts IV-VII and DENIED IN PART as to Counts I-III. 	The Plaintiff’s
Objection to the Order Denying His Request for Further Time to Respond to the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 85) and Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 93) are
DENIED as moot. The Plaintiff’s Motions for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 88)
and for an Order Directing the Defendants to Secure/Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 89)
are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2024.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 96 Filed 04/25/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>