Rivard v. Town of Brattleboro

• Citation: 2023 Vt Super 102601
• Docket Number: 22-CV-03222
• Decision Date: 26 October 2023
• Parties: Jeffrey Rivard v. Town of Brattleboro
• Court: Superior Court of Vermont

1

2023 Vt Super 102601

Jeffrey Rivard
v.
Town of Brattleboro

No. 22-CV-03222

Superior Court of Vermont, Civil Division, Windham Unit

October 26, 2023

Title: Motion to Join (Motion: 6)

Filer: Jeffrey M Rivard

Filed Date: August 06, 2023

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

DAVID BARRA, JUDGE

Plaintiff Jeffrey Rivard filed a motion titled "Motion to Enjoin," which Plaintiff presents as a motion for joinder. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs motion. The motion is DENIED.

Background

On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting joinder of parties pursuant to V.R.C.P. 20. Request for Joinder of Parties dated April 25, 2023. On July 24, 2023, that motion was denied by this court. Entry Regarding Motion dated July 24, 2023.

Cognizant of Plaintiff s pro se status, the court's entry provided Plaintiff with a sample of what a proper motion for joinder might say. Id. Ultimately though, the court concluded that the facts provided by Plaintiff did not explain why joinder was appropriate. Id.

On August 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed another motion titled "Motion to Enjoin." Plaintiff s Motion to Enjoin dated August 6, 2023. This time, Plaintiff does not specify under which rule Plaintiff seeks to pursue joinder, though he appears to be seeking to join the present docket with dockets 23-CV-00255, 23-CV-01280, and 23-CV-02763. Id. at 2. Engaging in speculation, the court finds that as grounds for joinder, Plaintiff cites

a pattern of negligence and a denial of Constitutional protections by a department Brattleboro Police and by it [sic] Citizens [sic] Police Communication Committee unlawful search and seizure, ... Americans with Disabilities Act, ... failure to provide accommodations with Vermont statute, ... [and a]n unlawful arrest

Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff cites no applicable rule supporting his motion.

2

Analysis

Rule 7(b)(1) of Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure requires a motion to "state with particularity the grounds [on which Plaintiff relies], including a concise statement of the facts and law relied on. The fragmented general assertions that Plaintiff provides in his motion do not state with particularity the grounds on which Plaintiff wishes to rely. To the extent that Plaintiff's assertions could be considered "stated with particularity," the court is not able to divine in what way they would support joinder under any rule. And while the statement of facts in Plaintiff's motion appears to be concise,...