Goddard v. Kelley

Decision Date31 March 2009
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 07-10705-FDS.
Citation629 F.Supp.2d 115
PartiesAndrew GODDARD, Plaintiff, v. William J. KELLEY, Daniel Humphreys, and Thomas Manning, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Jennifer L. Bills, Howard Friedman, David Milton, Law Offices of Howard Friedman, PC, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Karen A. Glasgow, Boston Fire Department Deputy Commissioner for Labor and Legal Affairs, Evan C. Ouellette, Raquel D. Ruano, City of Boston Law Department, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SAYLOR, District Judge.

This is a civil rights action arising out of the ejection of a fan from a Red Sox playoff game. Plaintiff Andrew Goddard attended Game Five of the 2004 American League Championship Series at Fenway Park between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. He was ejected after loudly, and obscenely, protesting the umpire's call when David Ortiz was thrown, out attempting to steal second base in the bottom of the twelfth inning. He contends that after his ejection he was physically assaulted and arrested without probable cause by three Boston police officers, defendants William J. Kelley, Daniel Humphreys, and Thomas Manning.

The complaint includes seven counts: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment by means of the use of unreasonable force (Count 1); a claim under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment by means of an arrest without probable cause (Count 2); a claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I (Count 3); a claim for assault and battery (Count 4); a claim for false imprisonment (Count 5); a claim for malicious prosecution (Count 6); and a negligence claim against the City of Boston (Count 7).

All defendants separately moved for summary judgment on all claims.1 For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied in part and granted in part.

The result of the Court's decision is, for the most part, to deny summary judgment and permit the matter to proceed to trial. In making that decision, it has viewed the evidence, as it must, in the light that is most favorable to the plaintiff. The Court does not, however, mean to suggest that it endorses the actions of the plaintiff. Andrew Goddard admits that he stood up at Fenway Park during a baseball game, extended his two middle fingers, and shouted, "Fuck you! You suck!" He also admits that he initially refused to leave his seat when he was ejected. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that obscene, ugly, and often dangerous behavior by spectators is a routine part of sporting events. Nonetheless, plaintiff here has made serious accusations of police misconduct, including an unprovoked physical assault, and his own misbehavior does not preclude him from asserting such a claim.

I. Statement of Facts

The facts are stated in the light most favorable to the plaintiff unless otherwise noted.

A. The 2004 ALCS

In October 2004, the Boston Red Sox staged the most dramatic comeback in baseball history. Trailing three games to none in the American League Championship Series against the New York Yankees, and trailing 4-3 in the ninth inning in Game Four, the Red Sox rallied to tie the game in the ninth, and won it in extra innings. The Red Sox went on to win the next three games to defeat the Yankees and to sweep the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series.2

The Red Sox lost the first three games of the ALCS, the third by the score of 19-8. Game Four was played at Fenway Park in Boston. In the bottom of the ninth, the Red Sox scored a run off Yankees reliever Mariano Rivera to tie the game, and won it in the twelfth inning on a home run by David Ortiz. The game ended after 1:30 a.m.

Game Five began at 8:10 p.m. the next evening, October 18, 2004, in Boston.

B. Goddard's Behavior During the Game

Plaintiff Andrew Goddard attended Game Five at Fenway Park. (Pl. Dep. at 18:12-16, 19:2-5). He was seated with his brother, Matthew Goddard, in a section of seats at field level just beyond first base. (Pl. Dep. at 18:21-23). The stadium was filled to capacity. (Pl. Dep. at 29:2-10).

The Red Sox scored two runs in the eighth inning to tie the game, one of which came on a David Ortiz home run. The game remained tied into the bottom of the twelfth inning when Ortiz drew a walk with one out. By that point, Game Five, the start of which had been delayed until 8:10 p.m., had already extended into the early morning hours of October 19.3

With two balls and one strike on the next batter, Doug Mienkiewicz, Ortiz attempted to steal second base. (Pl. Dep. at 26:16-18).4 As the pitch was thrown and Ortiz began running, Andrew and his brother, as well as the other fans seated in their section and the rest of the stadium, rose to their feet. (A. Goddard Dep. at 30:10-24). Ortiz and the throw from the catcher arrived at second base simultaneously, Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter applied the tag, and the umpire called Ortiz out. (Pl. Dep. at 26:14-17). The hometown crowd went into an uproar, booing and yelling with displeasure. (Pl. Dep. at 26:19-22). Ortiz also began arguing with the second base umpire. (Pl. Ex. K.).

Upon seeing the play and the reaction of Ortiz, Andrew Goddard stood up. He extended both his arms with his middle fingers upraised in the direction of the second base umpire and yelled, "Fuck you! You suck!" (Pl. Dep. at 27:17-24, 28:1-22).5

Andrew's outburst caught the attention of the first-base umpire, who was standing on the field in close proximity to Andrew's seat. (Pl. Dep. at 29:24, 30:1-3). The umpire immediately looked in Andrew's direction. (Pl. Dep. at 30:1). According to Andrew, he quickly returned to his seat and resumed watching the game. (Pl. Dep. at 30:9-24). The first-base umpire then approached security supervisor William Mullaly, who was nearby, and instructed him to eject both Andrew and Matthew Goddard. (Mullaly Dep. at 39:7-15). Mullaly went to Boston Police Detective William J. Kelley and Officer Daniel Humphreys, who were assigned to a security detail at Fenway Park, and requested their assistance in carrying out the ejection. (Mullaly Dep. at 39:8-12).

Detective Kelley contends that he witnessed Andrew's outburst. (Kelley Dep. 25:5-13).6

C. Goddard's Ejection from Fenway Park

Detective Kelley accompanied Mullaly to the aisle nearest to the point where Andrew and Matthew Goddard were sitting. (Mullaly Dep. at 40:13-21). Kelley informed them that if they did not leave the game, they would be arrested. (Pl. Dep. at 34:4-9). According to Andrew, he believed, from prior experience observing similar incidents at Fenway Park, that the officer would issue a warning prior to ejecting a fan for swearing, so he apologized and resumed watching the game. (Pl. Dep. at 33:20-24, 34:1-23).7

Andrew was told repeatedly that this was not a warning and was instructed to leave the stadium. The two men then stood up and began making their way toward the exit. (Pl. Dep. at 35:12-19). According to Andrew, the two brothers realized that arguing would be futile and planned to leave quickly in hopes of finding a nearby television on which to watch the end of the game. (Pl. Dep. at 35:12-19). While attempting to exit his seat, Kelley grabbed Andrew by the shirt and forcefully pulled him upward, into the aisle. (Pl. Dep. at 35:20-24). Andrew and Matthew then began ascending the stairs of the section toward the concourse that led to the exit. (Pl. Dep. at 42:12-13).

By the time the men reached the aisle at the end of their row of seats, Officer Daniel Humphreys of the Boston Police Department had arrived to assist Kelley. (Pl. Dep. at 42:6-8; Kelley Dep. at 42:2-7). Due to recent knee surgery, Andrew had trouble ascending the stairs. (Pl. Dep at 42:12-21). Officer Humphreys shoved Andrew in the back with every step in an attempt to hurry him up the stairs and out of the stadium. (Pl. Dep. at 42:20-21). After reaching the top of the stairs, the officers directed the men below the concourse and toward the nearest exit. Officer Humphreys continued to push Andrew from behind on the concourse despite the fact that Andrew told him that he had just had knee surgery and that he was moving as fast as he could. (Pl. Dep. at 46:8-22).

The officers then escorted the two men to an ambulance bay that the police used as a point from which to eject fans from the stadium. (Mullaly Dep. at 45:15-20). The bay was arranged so that an ambulance could be backed in through a garage door to provide first aid within the stadium in case of an emergency. (Kelley Dep. at 48:10-13). The officers released the two men in the ambulance bay and they exited the stadium through the opened garage door. (Pl. Dep. at 51:2-10).

At that point, a Red Sox security officer immediately called the men back into the stadium and asked them for photo identification so that he could include their names in an ejection report. (Pl. Dep. at 51:11-14). The two men gave their driver's licenses to the security officer and waited by the exit. (Pl. Dep. at 58:1-2).

While the two men waited for their licenses to be returned, Detective Kelley assumed an aggressive posture, standing very close to Matthew with his hands on him. (M. Goddard Dep. at 56:12-22). Feeling uncomfortable, Matthew looked down and attempted to take note of Kelley's badge number. (M. Goddard Dep. at 55:16-17). Kelley asked Matthew what he was looking at, to which he replied, "I'm looking at your badge number." (Pl. Dep. at 14-20). At that point, Kelley became irate, repeatedly yelling his badge number, swearing, and challenging Matthew to hit him. (Pl. Dep. at 56:3-13; M. Goddard Dep. at 56:5-13). Matthew remained standing on the sidewalk with his back against the brick outside wall of the stadium. (M. Goddard Dep. at 56:22-23; Pl. Dep. at 60:1-6).

D. Goddard's Arrest

As the confrontation between Matthew and Detective Kelley began to escalate, Andrew became scared and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • Gill v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 29 d5 Janeiro d5 2021
    ...A confinement which arises out of an arrest is "unlawful" only if the arresting officer lacked probable cause. Goddard v. Kelley, 629 F. Supp. 2d 115, 129 (D. Mass. 2009) ; Sietins v. Joseph, 238 F. Supp. 2d 366, 381 (D. Mass. 2003). A facially valid warrant can provide officers with probab......
  • Doe v. Amherst Coll.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 28 d2 Fevereiro d2 2017
    ...of a secured right, but must also be trying to interfere with the plaintiff's own exercise of a secured right. See Goddard v. Kelley , 629 F.Supp.2d 115, 128 (D. Mass. 2009) ("On its face, the MCRA contemplates a two-part sequence: (1) the defendant threatens, intimidates, or coerces the pl......
  • Lu v. Hulme
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 22 d2 Setembro d2 2015
    ...secured by federal or state constitution or laws has been interfered with by threats, intimidation, or coercion. SeeGoddard v. Kelley , 629 F.Supp.2d 115, 128 (D.Mass.2009) ; Bally v. Northeastern Univ. , 403 Mass. 713, 717, 532 N.E.2d 49 (1989)."To prevail under the Massachusetts Civil Rig......
  • Pimentel v. City of Methuen, Civil Action No. 17–11921–FDS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 26 d2 Junho d2 2018
    ...plaintiff, in order to (2) cause the plaintiff to give up something that [she] has the constitutional right to do." Goddard v. Kelley , 629 F.Supp.2d 115, 128 (D. Mass. 2009). The SJC has not yet decided whether municipalities may be liable under the MCRA. However, the Appeals Court has hel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • 1 d5 Abril d5 2022
    ...example, they cannot restrain a person and then arrest him for failure to leave the premises when ordered to do so. Goddard v. Kelly , 629 F. Supp.2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009). PROBABLE CAUSE, REA SONABLE SUSPICION §5:04 Suppressing Criminal Evidence 5-6 “Mere propinquity,” in a public place, to ......
  • Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • 31 d5 Julho d5 2020
    ...example, they cannot restrain a person and then arrest him for failure to leave the premises when ordered to do so. Goddard v. Kelly , 629 F. Supp.2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009). “Mere propinquity,” in a public place, to persons suspected of a crime does not constitute probable cause to arrest ( Yb......
  • Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Stops and Frisks
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • 4 d4 Agosto d4 2016
    ...example, they cannot restrain a person and then arrest him for failure to leave the premises when ordered to do so. Goddard v. Kelly , 629 F. Supp.2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009). “Mere propinquity,” in a public place, to persons suspected of a crime does not constitute probable cause to arrest ( Yb......
  • Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Stops and Frisks
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • 4 d5 Agosto d5 2017
    ...example, they cannot restrain a person and then arrest him for failure to leave the premises when ordered to do so. Goddard v. Kelly , 629 F. Supp.2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009). “Mere propinquity,” in a public place, to persons suspected of a crime does not constitute probable cause to arrest ( Yb......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT