Rivard v. Town of Brattleboro

• Citation: 2023 Vt Super 102602
• Docket Number: 23-CV-02763
• Decision Date: 26 October 2023
• Parties: Jeffrey Rivard v. Town of Brattleboro et al
• Court: Superior Court of Vermont

1

2023 Vt Super 102602

Jeffrey Rivard v. Town of Brattleboro et al

No. 23-CV-02763

Superior Court of Vermont, Civil Division, Windham Unit

October 26, 2023

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

DAVID BARRA, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Title Motion to Join; Motion to Join; Motion to Join (Motion: 3; 4 5)

Filer Jeffrey M Rivard; Jeffrey M Rivard; Jeffrey M Rivard

Filed Date: August 06, 2023; August 06, 2023; August 06, 2023

Plaintiff filed three almost identical motions titled "Motion to Enjoin," which Plaintiff presents as motions for joinder. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. The motion is DENIED.

Background

On August 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed three almost identical motions titled "Motion to Enjoin." See Plaintiff's Motions to Enjoin dated August 6, 2023. Plaintiff does not specify under which rule he seeks to pursue joinder, though he appears to be seeking to join the present docket with dockets 22-CV-03222 and 23-CV-01280. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also states that he wishes to "enjoin," though presumably join, Ryan Washburn as a defendant. Plaintiff's First Motion to Enjoin dated August 6, 2023, at 1. Plaintiff also states that he wishes to "enjoin," though presumably join, Brattleboro Police Department as a defendant. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Enjoin dated August 6, 2023, at 1. Plaintiff also states that he wishes to "enjoin," though presumably join, the Town of Brattleboro as a defendant. Plaintiff's Third Motion to Enjoin dated August 6, 2023 at 1. 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, ... police report written in a manner which indicates negligence or bias, [failure to respond to a grievance by the Town of Brattleboro], [refusal to acknowledge a wrong] ... unlawful search and seizure, ... Americans with Disabilities Act, ... failure to provide accommodations with Vermont statute, ... [and a]n unlawful arrest....

Plaintiff's Motions to Enjoin at 1-2.

Plaintiff cites no applicable rule supporting his motions.

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 motions 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 motions appears to be concise, Plaintiff does not include a concise statement of law upon which he relies. As a result, despite earnest review of the motions, the court cannot be sure how they support joinder. As the court had already stated in one of Plaintiffs' related cases,

[t]he court will try very hard to give effect

...