Felix v. Town of Randolph
| Decision Date | 22 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10997-GAO |
| Parties | MAX FELIX, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF RANDOLPH, TOWN OF RANDOLPH POLICE DEPARTMENT, KEVIN DONNELLY, EDWARD O'LEARY, and PAUL PORTER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
The magistrate judge to whom this matter was referred has filed a report and recommendation ("R&R") with respect to defendant Town of Randolph's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (dkt. no. 38) and the defendant Randolph Police Department's Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 40). After carefully reviewing the pleadings, the parties' motion papers, the R&R, and objections, I agree with the conclusions reached by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, I ADOPT the recommendation of the magistrate and the Town of Randolph's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (dkt. no. 38) are GRANTED. Counts II, III, IV, VI, VII, and so much of Count I as alleges a violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act against the Town of Randolph are dismissed with prejudice. The Police Department's Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 40) is also GRANTED. The following claims survive against the Town of Randolph: Count V and any federal civil rights claims under Count I.
It is SO ORDERED.
v.
TOWN OF RANDOLPH, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON TOWN OF RANDOLPH'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND
Boal, M.J.
Pro se plaintiff Max Felix ("Felix" or "Plaintiff") alleges that defendants Town of Randolph, Randolph Police Department, and Randolph Police Officers Kevin Donnelly, Edward O'Leary, and Paul Porter violated his civil rights. He also alleges claims for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to adequately train officers, defamation, and invasion of privacy. Defendant Town of Randolph has moved for judgment on the pleadings and defendant Randolph Police Department has moved to dismiss the claims against it.1 For the following reasons, this Court recommends to the District Court Judge assigned to this case that he grant the Town of Randolph's motion for judgment on the pleadingsand grant the Randolph Police Department's motion to dismiss.
On May 21, 2012, Felix filed his Complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court. See Docket No. 5 at 12. On June 13, 2012, the Defendants removed the case to this Court. Docket No. 1.
Defendants Town of Randolph, Donnelly, O'Leary and Porter filed an answer on November 20, 2012. Docket No. 37. On November 29, 2012, the Town of Randolph filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Docket No. 38. Also on November 29, 2012, the Randolph Police Department filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 40. Felix filed an opposition on November 30, 2012. Docket No. 44. On December 3, 2012, Felix filed a document titled "General Allegations." Docket No. 45.
The Plaintiff appears to allege that defendant Kevin Donnelly, a police officer for the Town of Randolph, has engaged in a continuous effort to harass and threaten Felix. Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 8. For example, Felix alleges that in March 2009, he walked into the Randolph Police Station to report a rental car stolen but he was arrested and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, failure to stop for police, negligent operation of a motor vehicle and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. Complaint, ¶ 8(a). He also alleges that Donnelly fabricated evidence and committed perjury when testifying against Felix in criminal proceedings.Complaint, ¶ 8(b), (g), (i), (j), (k).
Felix also alleges that in June 2010, he went to the Randolph Police Station to file a formal complaint against Donnelly. Complaint, ¶ 8(f). Defendant Lieutenant Edward O'Leary interviewed Felix about his complaint. Id. O'Leary allegedly asked Felix "when your [sic] found guilty will you apologize for this complaint?" Id. O'Leary stated in a typed letter "your complaints are not credible and are unfounded." Id.
In December 2011, Felix went to the Randolph Police Station to file a complaint against Donnelly for committing perjury and malicious prosecution. Complaint, ¶ 8(h). O'Leary approached Felix and stated "[j]ust because you were found not guilty doesn't mean you're not guilty!" Id. O'Leary became aggressive, ordered Felix out of the station and yelled "I've been doing this job longer than you've been born" and "get the fuck out of here." Id. Several officers approached Felix in an intimidating manner and escorted him out of the building. Id.
The Complaint contains the following seven counts against apparently all Defendants: (1) violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act,3 (2) conspiracy to violate civil rights, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) malicious prosecution, (5) failure to adequately train officers, (6) defamation, and (7) invasion of privacy.
The Randolph Police Department moved to dismiss the Complaint against it because, as a subdivision of the Town of Randolph, it is not an entity subject to suit. Docket No. 41 at 1. The Town of Randolph moves for judgment on the pleadings on all of Felix's claims except for anyfederal civil rights claims and failure to adequately train officers. The Town argues that, as a municipality, it is not a person subject to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Docket No. 39 at 1-2. The Town also argues that it is not a person capable of engaging in a conspiracy. Id. at 2. Finally, the Town argues that Felix's tort claims must be dismissed because under Massachusetts law, municipalities such as the Town are not liable for any claims arising out of an intentional tort. Id. at 2.
"After the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "A motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated much like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss."4 Perez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Curran v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2007)).
"To survive a motion to dismiss [and by extension, a Rule 12(c) motion], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.
"Because this motion, like a motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), involvessome assessment of the merits, we view the facts contained in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion - here, the plaintiff- and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Curran, 509 F.3d at 43 (citation omitted). Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Ayala Serrano v. Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1991). Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 445 F.3d 50, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court "may supplement the facts contained in the pleadings by considering documents fairly incorporated therein and facts susceptible to judicial notice." Curran, 509 F.3d at 44 (citation omitted).
Felix's claims against the Town of Randolph's Police Department are subject to dismissal. It is well established that a municipal police department is not subject to suit. Henschel v. Worcester Police Dep't, 445 F.2d 624. 624 (1st Cir. 1971) ("If a Police Department may be successfully sued, it is the city which will pay; the result is the same as suing the city."); Murphy v. Town of Natick, 516 F. Supp. 2d 153, 158 (D. Mass. 2007) (); Curran v. Boston, 777 F. Supp. 116, 120 (D. Mass. 1991) (same). Under both Massachusetts and federal law, a suit against a municipal police department is deemed to be a suit against the municipality itself. Murphy, 516 F. Supp. 2d at 158 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the proper defendant is the Town of Randolph and this Court recommends that the District Court dismiss all claims against the Randolph Police Department.
Felix brings a claim against the Town of Randolph under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, § 11. "The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act provides a right of action to any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the federal or state constitution or laws has been interfered with by 'threats, intimidation, or coercion."' Bolduc v. Town of Webster, 629 F. Supp. 2d 132, 157 (D. Mass. 2009) (quoting Bally v. Northeastern Univ., 403 Mass. 713, 717 (1989)). It is well established that a municipality such as the Town of Randolph cannot be sued under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 11 n. 9 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Howcroft v. City of Peabody, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 573 (2001)); Spanish Church of God of Holyoke v. Scott, 794 F. Supp. 2d 304, 308 (D. Mass. 2011) (citations omitted); Fletcher v. Szostkiewicz, 190 F. Supp. 2d 217, 230 (D. Mass. 2002). Accordingly, the Town of Randolph is entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Felix's Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims.
Without citing...
To continue reading
Request your trial