Limone v. U.S., CIV. 02-10890-NG.
| Citation | 271 F.Supp.2d 345 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 02-10890-NG.,CIV. 02-10890-NG. |
| Parties | Peter J. LIMONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts |
Michael Avery, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA, Juliane Balliro, Perkins, Smith & Cohen, LLP, Boston, MA, for Carolyn Limone Zenga, Janine Limone Arria, Olympia Limone, Paul Limone, Peter J. Limone, Peter J. Limone, Jr., Saverio Tameleo, Plaintiffs.
Richard D. Bickelman, Deutsch Williams Brooks DeRensis & Holland, P.C., Boston, MA, John Cavicchi, East Boston, MA, for Roberta Wemer, Plaintiff.
James M. Chemetsky, City of Boston Law Department, Boston, MA, for Frank L. Walsh, Defendant.
John M. Connolly, Meyer, Connolly & Sloman, Boston, MA, for Dennis Condon, Defendant, Pro se.
Thomas R Donohue, City of Boston Law Department, Boston, MA, for Frank L. Walsh, Defendant.
John C. Foskett, Deutsch, Williams, Brooks, DeRensis, Holland & Drachman, Boston, MA, for Roberta Wemer, Plaintiff.
Lawrence R. Holland, Deutsch, Williams, Brooks, DeRensis, Holland & Drachman, Boston, MA, for Roberta Wemer, Plaintiffs.
William T. Koski, Koski & Keams LLP, Boston, MA, for Carolyn Limone Zenga, Janine Limone Arria, Olympia Limone, Paul Limone, Peter J. Limone, Peter J. Limone, Jr., Saverio Tameleo, Plaintiffs.
Edward J. Lonergan, Boston, MA, for John Connolly, Defendant.
Michael B. Meyer, Meyer, Connolly & Sloman, Boston, MA, for Dennis Condon, Defendant, Pro se.
E.P. Mullane, Mullane, Michel & McInnes, Cambridge, MA, for John Connolly, Defendant.
E. Peter Parker, Boston, MA, for H. Paul Rico, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs1 accuse the defendants, the United States and various federal and state law enforcement officers,2 of framing Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo, and Louis Greco for the murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan on March 12, 1965. As a result of defendants' misconduct, plaintiffs allege, the trio were convicted of Deegan's murder in 1968 and sentenced to death, sentences that were later vacated and replaced with life imprisonment. Over the next several decades, the defendants covered up the real facts, allowing the trio to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit. In fact, plaintiffs allege, Deegan was killed by FBI informants Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi and Joseph Barboza, along with Roy French, Ronald Cassesso, and Joseph Martin.
In 2001, after serving nearly thirty years, Limone was released, his conviction vacated, and all charges dropped on the basis of newly revealed information. That information suggested he and the others had been convicted because of perjured testimony and suppressed exculpatory evidence. By then, Greco and Tameleo had died in prison, in 1995 and 1985, respectively. The complaints seek damages under a variety of federal and state law causes of action.3
Pending before me are multiple motions to dismiss the case on various legal grounds.4 At this point early in the litigation, prior to discovery and presentation of proof, the plaintiffs' allegations are presumed to be true. The case can be dismissed only if the claims are in some way legally deficient.
They are not. The defendants' voluminous motions to dismiss miss the forest for the trees. They argue over and over again that certain facts taken in isolation do not state actionable claims, ignoring the big picture. The government, plaintiffs say, framed three innocent men for murder, obtained death sentences against them, and then allowed them to be wrongfully held in prison for decades after the death sentences were vacated.
It is hard to conceive of accusations that shake the legal system closer to its foundation, that would do more to challenge this nation's most basic assumptions of honesty, fairness, and trust in the administration of justice. And if they prove true — which is the subject of proceedings for another day — they offer a cautionary tale at a time when courts and legislatures seem more and more prone to arrogate unchecked authority to law enforcement officers and prosecutors — all in the name of "national security."
For the reasons explained below, the defendants' motions are all DENIED.
In adjudicating motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all allegations in the complaints as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiffs. See Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254, 255 (1st Cir.1994). The complaints should be dismissed only if "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984).5
Louis Greco, Peter Limone, and Henry Tameleo were convicted in 1968 in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, for the March 12, 1965 murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan. They received death sentences that were later vacated and replaced with sentences of life imprisonment.
In fact, plaintiffs allege, Deegan was killed by Vincent ("Jimmy") Flemmi, Joseph Barboza, Roy French, Joseph Martin, and Ronald Cassesso.7 Greco, Limone, and Tameleo were innocent of the crime.8 Their wrongful convictions resulted from the acts and omissions of the defendants. Specifically, FBI agents H. Paul Rico, Dennis Condon, and others developed relationships with Flemmi and Barboza as FBI informants over the course of their investigation of organized crime in New England. While working with the FBI in this capacity, Flemmi and Barboza were allowed and perhaps even encouraged to engage in various illegal activities, including murder, conspiracy, perjury, and other crimes. When Deegan was murdered, the defendants developed Barboza as a witness in the case in order to procure indictments against and convictions of Greco, Limone, Tameleo, and others even though the defendants knew that Barboza's testimony was fabricated. Moreover, in the succeeding decades the defendants engaged in an active cover-up and repeatedly failed to turn over information that they had received from informants concerning Deegan's actual killers, information that was exculpatory of Greco, Limone, and Tameleo.
At the time of these alleged events, agents Rico and Condon were partners working out of the Boston FBI office with responsibility for investigating organized crime in New England. In the course of their work, they cultivated a number of relationships with confidential informants, including Flemmi, Barboza, and others. Rico, Condon, other agents, and their supervisors, including Special Agent in Charge James Handley, failed to follow proper procedures to handle these informants. As early as May 22, 1964, the agents were informed that Flemmi had stated that "all he wants to do now is kill people" and that his stated aspiration was to become the "number one hit man." As early as March 3, 1965, the agents were also advised that alleged crime boss Gennaro J. Angiulo had warned another alleged high-ranking mobster, Raymond Patriarca, that Flemmi "did not use sufficient common sense when it came to killing people."
Over the course of several months, the FBI also received information indicating that Flemmi specifically intended to kill Deegan. Agent Rico wrote in an October 19, 1964, memorandum that an informant reported that Flemmi wanted to kill Deegan and had asked the informant to go with him on the "hit." A memorandum from the Boston Office of the FBI to the Director of the FBI dated March 10, 1965 further indicated that an informant had reported that Flemmi and Barboza had contacted Patriarca to get his "OK" to kill Deegan. That same day, another informant reported to Rico that Flemmi indicated that Patriarca approved the "hit" and that a "dry run" had been made.
Yet Rico, Condon, Handley and other FBI agents did not warn Deegan and failed to take steps to prevent their informants, Flemmi and Barboza, from committing the murder. Ironically, it was Limone who, as early as October 23, 1964, had warned Deegan that Flemmi wanted to kill him.
Deegan was killed on March 12, 1965. The next day, an informant told Rico that Jimmy Flemmi had stated that Flemmi, Barboza, French, Cassesso and Martin had organized and committed the murder. Rico memorialized this information in a memorandum in which he reported that the information also had been transmitted to Officer Renfrew, then a captain in the Chelsea Police Department. One of the weapons used to kill Deegan was a .45 caliber handgun. On March 23, 1965, the FBI received information from an informant that Barboza claimed to have shot Deegan with a weapon of that caliber and deemed this information to be "very good." None of this information was revealed during the prosecution and post-conviction proceedings of Limone, Greco, and Tameleo.
In the spring of 1967, FBI agents including Rico and Condon arranged to meet with Barboza. They induced Barboza to cooperate with their investigation of the Deegan murder by conveying false information to Barboza through another informant that caused him to fear for his life. During these discussions, Barboza told the agents that he would not, under any circumstances, implicate Flemmi in the murder. Instead, Barboza falsely implicated Greco, Limone, and Tameleo. The agents nevertheless continued to develop Barboza as a witness even though they believed that Flemmi was involved in the murder. Rico, Condon, and Walsh took a formal statement from Barboza on September 12, 1967, in which he failed to implicate Flemmi. In addition, Barboza claimed that it was Greco who shot Deegan with the .45 caliber handgun — a statement that contradicted informant information, deemed credible by the FBI, that it was Barboza who pulled the trigger. In short, based on the information they had received both before and after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Limone v. U.S., Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.
...ruled on several of these legal issues in previous opinions dealing with defendant's motions to dismiss. See Limone v. United States, 271 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Mass.2003) ("Limone I"), aff'd Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2004); and Limone v. United States, 336 F.Supp.2d 18 (D.Mass.2004......
-
Bowling v. U.S.
...courts have questioned whether the United States is even capable of engaging in a conspiracy.42 This Court agrees with the court in Limone v. United States,43 which explained that a civil conspiracy claim is duplicitous when asserted under the FTCA, because a "tort-based civil conspiracy, w......
-
Torres Ocasio v. Melendez
...Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Greenier v. PACE, Local No. 1188, 201 F.Supp.2d 172 (D.Me.2002) and Limone v. U.S., 271 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Mass.2003). Under these circumstances, we are hesitant to apply the heightened pleading standard until this question is ultimately resolved by th......
-
Limone v. U.S.
...first round was filed at various times in 2003, and resulted in a lengthy decision by this Court on July 17, 2003, Limone v. United States, 271 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Mass.2003), which was affirmed on appeal, 372 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. June 10, 2004).1 The Court has allowed the government to file thes......