Hernandez v. Colon, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-30089-KAR

Decision Date25 May 2018
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:16-cv-30089-KAR
PartiesMARIA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. JOSUE COLON, ROGER GOUDREAU, EMIL MORALES, & CITY OF HOLYOKE, Defendants
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBERTSON, U.S.M.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This suit asserts claims under the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Massachusetts common law against three Holyoke police officers in their individual capacities and the City of Holyoke ("City"). Plaintiff Maria Hernandez's ("Plaintiff") allegations arose from the events surrounding a utility shut-off at her residence. The first amended complaint presents federal claims against Officer Josue Colon ("Colon") and Officer Roger Goudreau ("Goudreau") for unreasonable seizure (Count I), unlawful arrest (Count II), the excessive use of force (Count III), and the failure to intervene (Count IV). Plaintiff alleges that Officer Emil Morales ("Morales") unlawfully entered her residence (Count X). Plaintiff further alleges that the City failed to discipline and train its police officers to conduct utility shut-offs (Count V). Plaintiff's pendant state law claims against Colon and Goudreau allege assault and battery (Count VI), false arrest and imprisonment (Count VII), malicious prosecution (Count VIII), and abuse of process (Count IX).

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint (Dkt. No. 47). To the extent some counts survive their motion, Defendants have also requested bifurcation of the sole claim against the City, Count V, from the counts against the individual officers. Plaintiff has opposed Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and Defendants have replied to Plaintiff's opposition (Dkt. Nos. 58, 62). After the court heard the parties' arguments on January 24, 2018, they submitted supplemental briefs addressing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (Dkt. Nos. 66, 68). The parties have consented to this court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. For the reasons detailed below, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X and ALLOWED as to Count V. The Defendants' motion to bifurcate is moot in view of the court's ruling regarding Count V, Plaintiff's Monell claim.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff owned the townhouse at 87 Newton Street in Holyoke and resided there with her three children and a dog (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 7, 8, 39). The home was approximately in the middle of the block of "connected" townhouses that stretched between Cabot and Essex Streets (Dkt. No. 59-7 at 8). An alley behind the townhouses ran between these streets (id.).2

Plaintiff's payments to Holyoke Gas and Electric ("HG&E") were past due on May 27, 2014 (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 27; Dkt. No. 60-3 at 1-13). In all five months from January to May 2014, she had received notices that her electricity and gas services were "subject to discontinuance" (Dkt. Nos. 60-3 at 1-13, 60-4). A May 21, 2014 letter from HG&E informed Plaintiff that the gas and electric services would be terminated on May 27, 2014, that a HG&E employee would enter the building, and that a police officer would be present (Dkt. No. 60-5).

At 1:20 P.M. on May 27, 2014, Robert McNulty ("McNulty"), a junior meter technician with HG&E, telephoned the Holyoke Police Department requesting an officer to "stand by" at 87 Newton Street with him and a locksmith while he terminated the utility services (Dkt. No. 60-6 at 5; Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 13.20.58).3 McNulty and the locksmith were at the front door when Morales responded to 87 Newton Street at 1:57 P.M. (Dkt. No. 59-4 at 10; Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 13.57.57). McNulty and Morales knocked, but no one responded (Dkt. Nos. 59-4 at 11; 60-6 at14-15). The locksmith's attempts to open the door were unsuccessful (Dkt. No. 60-6 at 14). At 2:15 P.M., Morales contacted the police department's dispatcher and requested a history and a telephone number for 87 Newton Street (Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.15.25). The dispatcher responded about two minutes later and reported that calls for 87 Newton Street in the "past couple years" were "mostly medicals" and "attempts to serve paperwork" (Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.17.05). Morales reported that he heard a dog inside and someone stomping on the ground (id.). Morales informed the dispatcher, "Somebody's inside, they just refuse to open" (id.). Morales was familiar with the floor plans of the townhouses on Newton Street (Dkt. No. 48-7 ¶ 5). It sounded to him as if someone came down the stairs and moved away from the front door (id. ¶ 7).

A. The Stop of Plaintiff

At 2:18 P.M., Morales requested that an officer respond to the rear of 87 Newton Street to see if anyone was in the alley (Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.18.25). Colon, who was on patrol, arrived in the alley behind the townhouses on Newton Street about one minute after Morales' call (Dkt. No. 59-7 at 5-6, 8; Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.19.33).4

Plaintiff was not at her residence at approximately 2:00 P.M. (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 29). Her mother was there and her friends were on the second floor with their three children (id. at 32, 33). When Plaintiff returned from running errands, her mother reported that HG&E personnel were across the street (id. at 35, 36, 38, 39). Plaintiff then went to her first floor bedroom, got a receipt for the bail that she had posted for her friend, and left her home through the back door intending to collect the bail money and use it to pay her utility bill (id. at 38-39, 43).

Plaintiff saw Colon before she reached the gate that separated her backyard from the alley (id. at 44). Plaintiff did not dispute the officer's observation that she left a townhouse (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 45-46; Dkt. No. 59-8 at 3). Colon did not know for certain that Plaintiff was leaving from 87 Newton Street as opposed to one of the other townhouses (Dkt. No. 59-7 at 11). When Colon asked Plaintiff her name, she responded, "Milagro," her middle name by which she was known (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 48; Dkt. No. 59-8 at 3). Colon accused her of trespassing (Dkt. No. 59-8 at 3).

Plaintiff then unlocked the gate, entered the alley, closed the gate behind her, locked it, and waited (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 46, 48; Dkt. No. 59-8 at 3). When Colon did not speak to her, she walked away (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 46, 48). At 2:20 P.M., Colon reported over the radio that a female just came out and told him that she did not live there (Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.20.41). Morales directed Colon to "hold onto her" (id.).

Plaintiff paused when Colon approached her (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 48-49). Colon did not say anything, but reached toward her (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 49, 50; Dkt. No. 59-8 at 3). Plaintiff, believing that Colon was going to touch her, yelled, "Don't touch me" (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 49; Dkt. No. 59-8 at 3). About three minutes after Morales directed Colon to detain Plaintiff, Morales radioed Goudreau ("Rog[er]") and instructed him to ask Plaintiff "who else was inside" (Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.23.47). Morales "believe[d] there[] [was] somebody else inside [who] locked it when she walked out" (id.).

B. The Arrest of Plaintiff

Goudreau responded to the alleyway behind the townhouses on Newton Street at about 2:26 P.M. coming from the direction opposite from Colon (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 55; Dkt. No. 60-16;Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.26.33). Consequently, Plaintiff was between the two cruisers (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 55).

Goudreau exited his cruiser and approached Plaintiff telling Colon, "I'll take care of it. I got it" (id. at 56). Goudreau and Colon were approximately the same size: 5' 7" tall and about 198 pounds (Dkt. No. 59-11 at 1; Dkt. No. 60-18 at 1). Plaintiff was 4' 11" and weighed approximately 100 pounds (Dkt. No. 60-17 at 16). Goudreau pushed Plaintiff's chest with both hands as he informed her that he intended to tase her (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 56-58). Goudreau then used one of his legs to sweep Plaintiff's legs out from under her (id. at 59). She fell to the ground, face down, and "momentarily" lost consciousness (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 59; Dkt. No. 60-17 at 29). Goudreau, who was on top of Plaintiff when she regained consciousness, withdrew his Taser from its holster, removed the cartridge, and applied the drive stun mode to the back of her right arm (Dkt. No. 48-9 ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 59-3 at 64; Dkt. No. 60-17 at 26, 29).5 Plaintiff's screams of pain attracted the neighbors' attention (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 65-66; Dkt. No. 60-17 at 29).

Plaintiff remained face-down on the ground (Dkt. No. 60-17 at 29). She denied struggling with the officers and refusing their commands to remove her left arm from underneath her body (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 64-65, 74, 75; Dkt. No. 60-17 at 30). Instead, she alleged that she was lying still when Goudreau applied his Taser's drive stun mode again, this time to her lower back on the right side (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 64, 65; Dkt. No. 60-17 at 31). Plaintiff then stood with Goudreau's assistance and permitted him to handcuff her (Dkt. No. 48-9 ¶ 18; Dkt. No. 59-3 at 66, 67). One of her wrists slipped out of a handcuff that was too loose (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 69, 70, 71-72). Goudreau reapplied the handcuff and transported her to the police department atapproximately 2:27 P.M. (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 71-72; Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.27.28). During the transport, Plaintiff told Goudreau that she was going to contact an attorney (Dkt. No. 59-3 at 72). Neither Goudreau nor Colon sustained injuries during their encounter with Plaintiff and they did not charge her with committing an assault and battery on a police officer (Dkt. No. 60-17 at 20, 24).

C. Plaintiff at the Police Department

At the police department, Plaintiff refused to provide her identifying information to the booking officer and swore at an officer (Dkt. No. 48-5 at 6; Dkt. No. 59-3 at 73-74; Dkt. No. 63, Ex. 1 at 14.43.47). She was charged...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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