Jakuttis v. Town of Dracut
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12643-DPW |
| Decision Date | 14 February 2023 |
| Citation | 656 F.Supp.3d 302 |
| Parties | Joseph A. JAKUTTIS, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF DRACUT, MASSACHUSETTS, David J. Chartrand, Jr., Michael V. O'Hanlon, Demetri Mellonakos, Richard P. Poirier, Jr., and United States of America, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Laurence E. Sweeney, Chelmsford, MA, for Plaintiff.
Evan C. Ouellette, Gregor A. Pagnini, Jeremy I. Silverfine, Leonard H. Kesten, Thomas R. Donohue, Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Town of Dracut.
Andrew J. Gambaccini, Reardon, Joyce & Akerson, P.C., Worcester, MA, Douglas I. Louison, Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP, Boston, MA, for DefendantDavid J. Chartrand, Jr.
Anita Johnson, Michael P. Sady, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for DefendantMichael V. O'Hanlon.
Anita Johnson, Michael P. Sady, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, John
M. Wilusz, Hinckley Allen & Snyder, LLP, Boston, MA, for DefendantRichard P. Poirie, Jr.
John J. Davis, Adam Simms, Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP, Boston, MA, John M. Wilusz, Hinckley Allen & Snyder, LLP, Boston, MA, Christine M. Dowling, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Legal Division, Boston, MA, for DefendantDemetri Mellonakos.
Annapurna Balakrishna, Michael P. Sady, U.S. Attorney's Office, Civil Division, Boston, MA, for Defendant United States of America.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
b. Summary Judgment and QualifiedImmunity...318
c. Motion to Dismiss and QualifiedImmunity...318
d. District Court's Procedural Control over Discovery...319
1.Matter of PublicConcern...328
2.Speaking as a Citizen...328
1.Section 185(b)(1)...334
2.Section 185(b)(3)...335
3.Section 185(b)(2)...335
1.Mr. Jakuttis' Claim AgainstMr. Chartrand...338
Joseph A. Jakuttis, a quondam member of the Dracut Police Department, says a confidential source made him aware of potential illegal theft and use of controlled substances by other members of the Dracut Police Department.Shortly after Mr. Jakuttis brought these allegations to the attention of members of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency("DEA") and the Dracut Police Department itself, he was removed from the DEA Task Force to which he had been assigned and placed back in the Dracut Police Department patrol unit, despite years of experience with the detective unit.Mr. Jakuttis contends that his efforts to expose misconduct by those sworn to uphold the law resulted in harassment from fellow officers and a demotion.He has since taken an indefinite leave from the Department.
This case has been pleaded with a broad brush and in a less than rigorous fashion, but after discovery as to claims against certain of the Defendants and upon careful examination of the operative First Amended Complaint (the "operative Complaint") in light of the summary judgment record developed, I am satisfied that no genuine issues as to material facts have been identified to prevent entry of final judgment for all remaining Defendants left after the travel of the case to date.
Joseph A. Jakuttis is a resident of Deerfield, New Hampshire.At the time he filed this action, and as alleged in the operative Complaint in this matter, Mr. Jakuttis was a police officer for the Town of Dracut, Massachusetts.
i. The Town of Dracut(the "Town" or "Dracut") is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts.During all relevant periods described in the operative Complaint, the Town was Mr. Jakuttis's employer ii.David J. Chartrand, Jr. is an individual residing in Dracut, Massachusetts.At all material times referenced in the operative Complaint, Mr. Chartrand was employed by the Dracut Police Department.He served as the Deputy Chief of the Dracut Police Department.
iii.Demetri Mellonakos[John Doe 1],1 is an individual residing in Dracut, Massachusetts.At all times material to the operative Complaint, he was employed as a member of the Dracut Police Department.
i. Michael V. O'Hanlon is an individual residing in Andover, Massachusetts.At all times material to the operative Complaint, he was employed by the United States Department of Justice as a DEA agent.
ii.Richard P. Poirier, Jr.[John Doe 2],3 is an individual residing in Lowell, Massachusetts.At all times material to the operative Complaint, he was formally employed by the Massachusetts State Police and also served on detail to the DEA Task Force.
iii.United States.As a result of certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) in connection with removal of the case to this Court[Dkt. No. 5], this lawsuit became in relevant part an action against the United States and the United States was substituted as the formal partydefendant for the federal Defendants.Following the lead of counsel for the United States and in the interest of clarity, I have identified the claims against the United States as involving conduct of the individual named federal Defendants.Thus, the discussion of claims against the United States specifically addresses the actions of the relevant certified employees of the United States — Messrs. O'Hanlon and Poirier — whose conduct provides the basis for the claims against the United States.
This litigation began its journey to this court after Mr. Jakuttis filed the operative Complaint on December 19, 2016 in Middlesex Superior Court and thereafter on December 30, 2016, the United States removed the case on the basis that certain of the claims concerned acts by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment as such.See28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1); 1443;2679(d)(2).[Dkt. No. 5 at ¶¶ 8-10]
Following removal, Mr. Jakuttis voluntarily dismissed his Massachusetts state civil rights act claim, said to be "cognizable through the Federal Tort Claims Act," as to the federal Defendants(included in Count II) and other Federal Tort Claims Act claims(included in Counts IV, V, VI, and VII)[Dkt. Nos. 48 and 49].I, in turn, ordered [Dkt. No. 50] all such claims dismissed as to the federal Defendants(Counts II, IV-VII) certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d).
Messrs. O'Hanlon and Poirier, the individual certified federal Defendants, then moved to dismiss [Dkt. No. 51] Mr. Jakuttis's remaining civil rights claims and his civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")Act claims against them.I dismissed Mr. Jakuttis's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights and Bivens claims against the federal Defendants.But I took under advisement the federal Defendants' motion [Dkt. No. 51] to dismiss Mr. Jakuttis's remaining federal civil RICOandRICO conspiracy claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d)and1964(c).Meanwhile, I granted a motion to stay discovery as to the federal Defendants pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss.[Dkt. No. 82]
For their part, following completion of discovery, the Dracut Defendants — Messrs. Chartrand and Mellonakos, and the Town of Dracut — moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts naming those Defendants.[Dkt. Nos. 117, 121, 123] A Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts was filed by these Defendants[Dkt. No. 119] and Mr. Jakuttis responded with a Statement of Disputed Material Facts[Dkt. No. 126].
Consequently, now...
To continue reading
Request your trial