Santiago v. Bloise

• Decision Date: 05 October 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 09–10055–MBB.
• Citation: 741 F.Supp.2d 357
• Parties: Madeline SANTIAGO, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of C.S., Plaintiffs,v.Giovanni H. BLOISE and Town of Methuen, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

741 F.Supp.2d 357

Madeline SANTIAGO, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of C.S., Plaintiffs,

v.Giovanni H. BLOISE and Town of Methuen, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 09–10055–MBB.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Oct. 5, 2010.

Thomas P. Smith, Caffrey & Smith, Lawrence, MA, for Plaintiff.Douglas I. Louison, Regina M. Ryan, Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.Giovanni Bloise, Bradford, MA, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOCKET ENTRY # 22)

BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before this court is a motion for judgment on the pleadings for Count II filed by defendant Town of Methuen (“Town of Methuen”). (Docket Entry # 22). Plaintiffs Madeline Santiago (“plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of her daughter, C.S. (“daughter”), (collectively: “plaintiffs”) oppose the dismissal of Count II. (Docket Entry # 24). On March 3, 2010, this court held a hearing and took the motion (Docket Entry # 22) under advisement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The four count complaint against the Town of Methuen and defendant Giovanni H. Bloise (“Bloise”), the town constable, sets out the following claims: (1) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”) against Bloise for unlawful arrest and search and seizure (Count I); (2) a section 1983 civil rights violation under a theory of a failure to train or supervise constables regarding Bloise's actions brought against the Town of Methuen (Count II); (3) false imprisonment against Bloise (Count III); and (4) intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress against Bloise (Count IV). (Docket Entry # 1).

Count II is the only claim at issue in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Docket Entry # 23). The Town of Methuen argues that the count does not contain a proper section 1983 claim because it fails to identify a custom or policy of the town. The Town of Methuen contends that such an omission makes the claim insufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference towards the training and supervision of constables. (Docket Entry # 23).

Plaintiffs submit that there is no heightened pleading standard for a section 1983 claim against a municipality. (Docket Entry # 24). According to plaintiffs, the complaint provides sufficient facts to demonstrate that Bloise, in his appointed position as constable, acted under color of state law when the incident occurred. (Docket Entry # 24).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings “ ‘is treated much like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.’ ” Perez–Acevedo v. Rivero–Cubano, 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir.2008). Because a Rule 12(c) “motion calls for an assessment of the merits of the case at an embryonic stage, the court must view the facts contained in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom” in the nonmovant's favor. R.G. Financial Corp. v. Vergara–Nunez, 446 F.3d 178, 182 (1st Cir.2006). Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), “to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (and, by extension, a Rule 12(c) motion) a complaint must contain factual allegations that ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.’ ” Perez–Acevedo v. Rivero–Cubano, 520 F.3d at 29 (quoting Bell and setting out standard of review for 12(c) motion).

A Rule 12(c) motion nonetheless differs from a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because “it implicates the pleadings as a whole.” Aponte–Torres v. University of Puerto Rico, 445 F.3d 50, 54–55 (1st Cir.2006). Filed after the close of the pleadings, a Rule 12(c) motion is “based solely on the factual allegations in the complaint and answer.” NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2002).

As a result of the obligation to view the facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, however, a court should “treat[ ] any allegations in the answer that contradict the complaint as false.” Goodman v. Williams, 287 F.Supp.2d 160, 161 (D.N.H.2003); accord Rimmer v. Colt Industries Operating Corporation, 656 F.2d 323, 326 (8th Cir.1981) (Rule 12(c) review assumes all “well pleaded factual obligations in Rimmer's amended complaint are true, and all contravening assertions in Colt's answer are assumed to be false”); see Stanton v. Larsh, 239 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir.1957) (on Rule 12(c) motion, facts in “answer are taken as true only where and to the extent that they have not been denied or do not conflict with those of the complaint”). Additional facts in an answer which do not require a reply, see Rule 7(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. (no responsive pleading required except inter alia for counterclaim denoted as such), are also considered denied by the non-moving party. See Rule 8(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“[i]f a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided”); 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1368 (2004).

Subject to certain narrow exceptions and absent a conversion of the Rule 12(c) motion to a summary judgment motion under the procedure set forth in Rule 12(d), this court's review is confined to the complaint and the answer. Exceptions exist that allow consideration of “facts susceptible to judicial notice.” R.G. Financial Corp. v. Vergara–Nunez, 446 F.3d at 182 (discussing Rule 12(c) motion). In evaluating a Rule 12(c) motion, a court may also “consider ‘documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties' ” as well as “ ‘documents central to the plaintiffs' claim’ ” and “ ‘documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint.’ ” Curran v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36, 44 (1st Cir.2007); see also Trans–Spec Truck Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315 321–322 (1st Cir.2008); Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993). When the documents submitted are part of the public record, however, the court may consider them without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See In re Stone & Webster, 253 F.Supp.2d 102, 128 & n. 11 (D.Mass.2003) (considering copies of SEC Form 4 filings without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment).

Plaintiffs attached an exhibit to their memorandum in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Docket Entry # 24, Ex. 1). The exhibit contains documentation of Bloise's appointment to the position of constable by the Town of Methuen. (Docket Entry # 24, Ex. 1). It is not appropriate to consider the document. It was not referred to in the complaint or attached as an exhibit to the complaint. Moreover, the Town of Methuen has not had an opportunity to dispute the authenticity of the document inasmuch as it did not seek leave of court to file a reply brief. See LR 7.1(B)(3).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At approximately eight in the morning on January 19, 2006, plaintiff put her daughter, then six years old, on a Methuen Public School bus to go to school. (Docket Entry # 1). On this same day, Bloise, acting as constable for the Town of Methuen and under color of law, stopped the school bus. (Docket Entry # 1).

Bloise next attempted to get plaintiff's daughter off the bus even though he had no warrant or authority to apprehend her. (Docket Entry # 1). Subsequently, Bloise made threats to plaintiffs and the bus driver in order to take plaintiff and her daughter into custody. (Docket Entry # 1). Bloise then proceeded to enter plaintiffs' home without authority and against plaintiff's request. (Docket Entry # 1).

Following a search of the home, Bloise seized plaintiff and her daughter and placed them under arrest without authority. (Docket Entry # 1). He then placed plaintiffs in a locked car and transported them to the Probate and Family Court in Lawrence, Massachusetts. (Docket Entry # 1). As a result of the incident, plaintiffs experienced humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress. (Docket Entry # 1).

DISCUSSION

The Town of Methuen contends that Count II is subject to Rule 12(c) dismissal because plaintiffs fail to allege a proper section 1983 claim. (Docket Entry # 23). The Town of Methuen argues that it did not fail to supervise Bloise, in his position as a town constable, because Bloise was not a Town of Methuen employee and therefore it owed no duty to plaintiffs. (Docket Entry # 23). Moreover, the Town of Methuen suggests that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient because they fail to identify either an unconstitutional or a deliberately indifferent policy employed by the Town of Methuen. (Docket Entry # 23). Accordingly, the Town of Methuen argues that the complaint fails to state facts allowing an inference of a policy of deliberate indifference and thereby requiring the dismissal of Count II. (Docket Entry # 23).

Count II alleges that the Town of Methuen failed to train or supervise its constables and that such conduct constitutes gross negligence. (Docket Entry # 1). Accordingly, Count II must proceed under a theory of municipal liability.¹ Liability of municipalities only applies in limited circumstances. See Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.2002). Moreover, “municipality liability is not vicarious.” Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright, 548 F.3d 155, 177 (1st Cir.2008). Municipal liability is only established when “municipal employees commit unconstitutional acts and those actions are shown to have been caused by a ‘policy or custom’ of the government.” Id.

In a failure to train claim, “only if the ‘municipality's failure to train its employees in a relevant respect evidences a deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants can such a shortcoming be properly thought of as a city policy or custom that is actionable under § 1983.’ ” Id. Deliberate indifference cannot be inferred; it must be shown in the complaint. See Sanchez v. Pereira–Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 50 (1st Cir.2009).

For a court to find a policy...