United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
Filed Date March 23, 2018
WILLIAM E. SMITH, CHIEF JUDGE
Judge Lincoln D. Almond filed a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (ECF No. 39) in this case,
recommending the Court grant Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29).
careful review of the papers related to Defendants'
Motion, and of the R&R, and having heard no objections,
the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and adopts its recommendation
and reasoning. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29)
is therefore GRANTED.
Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court pursuant to (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B))
is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. (ECF Doc. No. 29). Pro se Plaintiff Juan
Rodriguez, a prisoner at the Adult Correctional Institutions
("ACI"), has brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendants Ashbel T. Wall, Matthew
Kettle, Jeffrey Aceto, Lieutenant Burt, Lieutenant Amaral and
Investigator Cabral, all of whom are sued in their individual
capacities and in their official capacities with the Rhode
Island Department of Corrections ("Defendants").
Defendants move the Court to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and because it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the
Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
is an inmate at the ACI in Cranston, Rhode Island. His pro se
First Amended Complaint, filed on August 11, 2017, alleged
violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. In brief,
Plaintiff was charged with several disciplinary infractions,
received hearings and was found guilty and sentenced to
periods in segregation. His claims stem from the proceedings
and resulting punishment.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed several
Motions seeking additional time to file an Objection as well
as paper copies of certain cases. (ECF Doc. Nos. 30, 33, 34,
36). On January 19, 2018, the Court Ordered Defendants to
provide Plaintiff with copies of the requested cases and
Ordered Plaintiff to file his response to the Motion to
Dismiss on or before February 9, 2018. Defendants promptly
filed a Declaration that they complied with the Court's
Order. (ECF Doc. No. 38). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an
Objection to the Motion to Dismiss or otherwise responded to
the Court's Order. Thus, Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is unopposed and could be granted on that basis.
However, out of deference to Plaintiffs pro se status, the
Court will also substantively address the arguments for
dismissal made by Defendants.
Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, see
Neeron-Gaztambide v. Hernandez-Torres, 35 F.3d 25,
27 (1st Cir. 1994); taking all well-pleaded
allegations as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of
all reasonable inferences, see Arruda v. Sears. Roebuck
& Co., 310 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2002);
Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., 68 F.3d 1443,
1446 (1st Cir. 1995). If under any theory the
allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action in
accordance with the law, the motion to dismiss must be
denied. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., 14 F.3d 697, 700
(1st Cir. 1994).
plaintiff need not plead factual allegations in great detail,
the allegations must be sufficiently precise to raise a right
to relief beyond mere speculation. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (abrogating the "no
set of facts" rule of Conlev v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 44-45 (1957)). "The complaint must allege
'a plausible entitlement to relief in order to survive a
motion to dismiss." Thomas v. Rhode Island, 542
F.3d 944, 948 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559). See also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 ("[w]hen there are well-
pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief). The Court of Appeals has
cautioned that the "plausibility" requirement is
not akin to a "standard of likely success on the merits,
" but instead, "the ...