Pearson v. Department of Corrections

Background

Pearson alleged that conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center were unsafe because defendants were not following proper COVID-19 screening protocols and social-distancing guidelines. He alleged that this left him in a constant state of fear. The opinion identifies the defendants as Cynthia Brann, Patricia “Patsy” Yang, and Margaret Egan.

Pearson moved for default judgment after the defendants failed to respond to his second amended complaint by the applicable deadlines. The defendants’ attorney acknowledged that the response was more than a month late and explained that she had failed to calendar the deadlines. She requested permission to file the attached answer and an extension of time applying retroactively to the missed deadlines. She also argued that Pearson had not been prejudiced because the case was still at an early stage and similar cases involving conditions at the facility were continuing to develop.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the defendants’ request to file an answer. The court stated that it was not condoning the defendants’ conduct but noted that the case was in its early stages. The court also found Pearson’s motion for default judgment moot because the defendants had answered and appeared. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Pearson, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court ruled on the defendants’ request to file a late answer and on Pearson’s default-judgment motion; it did not decide whether the alleged conditions of confinement violated the law.