Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael D. Gaskill v. New Hampshire State Prison et al.

February 21, 2012

MICHAEL D. GASKILL
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court is Michael Gaskill's complaint (doc. no. 1) and addenda to the complaint (doc. nos. 8-10, 12, 13, and 25-28), alleging that employees of the New Hampshire State Prison ("NHSP") have violated his constitutional and state law rights during his incarceration.*fn1 Because Gaskill is incarcerated, this action is before the court for preliminary review to determine, among other things, whether the plaintiff has asserted any claim in the matter upon which relief might be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule ("LR") 4.3(d)(2).

Service

As explained fully in a report and recommendation issued simultaneously with this order,*fn2 Gaskill has stated claims upon which relief might be granted as follows: (1) an excessive force claim against C.O. Lee Houston; (2) federal and state law claims asserting inadequate medical care against Houston and Nurse Dahlia Kasahas; and (3) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, First Amendment, and Equal Protection claims against C.O. Azzara. Accordingly, the court now directs service of these claims on the identified defendants.

The Clerk=s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General (AAG@), as provided in the Agreement on Acceptance of Service, electronic copies of this Order and the complaint (document nos. 1, 8-10, 12, 13, and 25-28). See LR 4.3(d)(2)(C). Within thirty days from receipt of these materials, the AG will submit an Acceptance of Service notice to the court specifying whether each defendant has authorized the AG=s office to receive service on his or her behalf. When the AG's office files the Acceptance of Service, service will be deemed made on the last day of the thirty-day period. If any defendant does not authorize the AG=s office to receive service on his or her behalf, or the AG declines to represent any defendant, the AG shall, within thirty days from receipt of the aforementioned materials, provide to the court the last known address of that defendant.

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to the defendants or their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).

Leave to Amend Complaint

As explained in the report and recommendation, Gaskill is granted leave to file an amended complaint to name a defendant or defendants as to each of the following claims, and to state with specificity what each defendant did or failed to do to violate Gaskill's rights:

1. an endangerment claim based on officers placing Gaskill in a cell with a violent inmate;

2. excessive force claims concerning incidents that Gaskill alleges occurred in MHU and SHU;

3. inadequate medical care claims concerning: (a) injuries incurred in the MHU and SHU incidents; (b) irritable bowel syndrome; and (c) chest pains.

If Gaskill chooses to amend his complaint as directed, he must file his amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order.

Request for Representation

In his complaint, Gaskill requests that this court appoint counsel to represent him in this matter. There is no absolute constitutional right to free legal representation in a civil case. See King v. Greenblatt, 149 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1998). Rather, appointment of counsel in a civil case is left to the discretion of the court. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(d). An appointment of counsel would be warranted in a case where the indigent litigant can show that "'exceptional circumstances were present such that a denial of counsel was likely to result in fundamental ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.