District Court, D. Maine, 2023

ENGLESBOBB v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

ENGLESBOBB v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Court, D. Maine · Decided September 7, 2023
ENGLESBOBB v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ANTHONY ENGLESBOBB, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 1:22-cv-00351-GZS ) MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION The Office of the Maine Attorney General seeks clarification as to which of the named defendants remain party to the case following the Court’s preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended. (Motion for Clarification, ECF No. 25.) The Court grants the motion.

Following its preliminary review, the Court dismissed all Plaintiff’s claims except for Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. (Order, ECF No. 23.) In his amended complaint, Plaintiff lists as defendants the Maine Department of Corrections and department officials Clancy, Snow, Theriault, Richards, and Dupperre. While Plaintiff made some specific allegations regarding certain defendants in the original complaint, in the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged a due process claim referencing the conduct of a disciplinary committee and an appeals official. (Amended Complaint at 4-5, ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not directly allege that the named defendants were members of the disciplinary committee or whether one of the defendants served as an appeals official. Nevertheless, consistent with the Court’s obligation to “construe [Plaintiff’s] by lawyers,’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), the Court construed Plaintiff’s amended complaint to allege that the named defendants were involved in the alleged conduct that supports Plaintiff’s due process claim. In its dismissal order, therefore, the Court distinguished among the claims but not the defendants. Accordingly, at the present time, the named defendants remain party to the case on the due process claim.

NOTICE Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.

/s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated this 7th day of September, 2023.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.