Wilson v. Moreau
| Decision Date | 03 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 03-575-L. |
| Citation | 440 F.Supp.2d 81 |
| Parties | Thomas WILSON, Donald P. Twohig, Donald D. Twohig and Thomas Shannahan, Plaintiffs, v. Charles D. MOREAU, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as agent for the City of Central Falls; John Kuzmiski, in his capacity as finance director and treasurer of the City of Central Falls; Richard B. Bessette, individually and his capacity as agent for the City of Central Falls; Martin Joyce, individually and his capacity as Acting Personnel Specialist of the City of Central Falls; Raymond Cooney, individually and in his capacity as City Solicitor of the City of Central Falls; Alberto Cardona, individually and in his capacity as agent for the City of Central Falls; Kevin Guindon, individually and in his capacity as a Central Falls Police Officer; Mark Brayall, individually and in his capacity as a Central Falls Police officer, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Leon A. Blais, Blais & Parent, Mansfield, MA, Sara M. Quinn, Quinn & Quinn, L.L.P., Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs.
Marc Desisto, Michael A. Desisto, Desisto Law, Providence, RI, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion of all Defendants for Summary Judgment on all counts of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs have asserted a twelvecount Complaint, which includes constitutional claims, federal statutory claims, state common law claims, a claim under the Rhode Island General Laws, and a claim under city charter provisions. These claims result from a series of events that took place between the fall of 2003 and the spring of 2004 in the City of Central Falls. Rhode Island, before and after Defendant Charles D. Moreau's election to his first term as mayor of that municipality. The four Plaintiffs all worked for the City of Central Falls in various capacities prior to Mayor Moreau's tenure. The eight Defendants are employees and consultants associated with Mayor Moreau, and the mayor himself.
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts I, II, III, IV, V, XI and XII. Summary judgment is granted on portions of Count VI, as will be explained fully later in this decision. These counts include all the federal statutory and constitutional claims, and the claim brought under the Charter of the City of Central Falls.
The remaining claims, which are the state common law and statutory claims outlined in Counts VII, VIII, IX, and X, are dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiffs Thomas Wilson and Thomas Shannahan, as the Court determines that its exercise of pendent jurisdiction over these claims is no longer appropriate. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs Donald D. Twohig and Donald P. Twohig, on Counts VII, VIII and IX. Summary judgment is also granted in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff Donald D. Twohig's claims under Count X; hut denied as to the claims of Plaintiff Donald P. Twohig.
The background that is pertinent to this case starts in October 2003, when Defendant Charles Moreau was running for mayor of Central Falls against the incumbent, Lee Matthews. Back in January 2003, Mayor Matthews, acting in conjunction with the Central Falls Personnel Board, hired Plaintiff Thomas Wilson to serve as the chief of police for Central Falls, following a competitive hiring process. Wilson had previously served as a member of the police force in Warwick, Rhode Island, for twenty-five years, rising to the level of Deputy Chief before leaving to take a job as regional director of security for the Seven-Eleven store chain. During the mayoral campaign, Wilson made a financial contribution to Matthews.
A few days before the election, Moreau made a public statement indicating that, if elected, he intended to fire Wilson, a Cranston resident, and hire a new police chief from Central Falls. The announcement was carried in The Pawtucket Times on October 30, 2003, under the headline, "Moreau: I'll sack the chief." The story continued, quoting Moreau further:
"Chief Wilson is a great guy, but I'd replace him and it wouldn't be hard because he's working without a contract," Moreau said. "We need to address the problems better," Moreau said. Moreau added.
The election took place on November 4, 2003, and Moreau was elected to the post of mayor by a margin of sixteen votes. On November 7, 2003, The Pawtucket Times ran another story, headlined, "Mayor-elect outlines plan to clean house," in which he reiterated his plan to fire Wilson, as well as several other city employees and replace them with "quality city resident[s]."1
In December 2003, Wilson filed a lawsuit in this Court, seeking to restrain Mayor-elect Moreau from interfering with his employment status. On December 19, 2003, the parties entered into a stipulation that the case would be held in abeyance for 120 days, at which point the case would be dismissed without prejudice if Moreau had riot taken any adverse employment action against Wilson during that time period.
Moreau was sworn in as mayor on January 5, 2004. In Central Falls, the mayor also serves as the public safety director, which is the top official for both the police and fire departments. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, after his inauguration, Moreau soon launched a new campaign — this one geared at undermining the authority of Wilson within the police department, by issuing orders directly to police officers without informing Wilson, holding meetings with police officers without Wilson present, refusing to communicate with Wilson, and generally leaving Wilson "out of the loop."
Between February 23 and February 27, 2004, Wilson took a vacation, which had been previously scheduled and approved prior to Moreau's inauguration. During this time off, Wilson traveled to Kansas to teach a course on police administration sponsored by Northwestern University. When Wilson returned from Kansas, he went into the police station on Sunday afternoon to catch up on paperwork. While there, he sent Moreau an e-mail reminding him that he, Wilson, would also be going to an F.B.I. regional conference in Connecticut the following week. The tuition for the F.B.I. seminar had been requisitioned, approved and paid for by the City in January.
On Tuesday, Moreau reached Wilson at the F.B.I. conference and ordered him to return to Central Falls immediately. Wilson hurried back to the mayor's office, only to be turned away and told to return the following day. The next day, Wilson returned to the mayor's office and was notified that he was being suspended for two days for violating an ordinance on vacation, sick and personal leave, in connection with both the vacation week and the conference week. Wilson was disciplined by Moreau and by Martin Joyce, part-time personnel specialist, advisor to Moreau and co-defendant in this case. A story about Wilson's suspension was carried in The Pawtucket Times on March 16.
On March 11, Moreau ordered Wilson to bring his city-owned vehicle to City Hall because Moreau wanted to trade vehicles. On arrival, Moreau took possession of Wilson's car, but told him his replacement car was not ready. Wilson was forced to walk back to the police station. Eventually, Wilson did receive another city-owned vehicle, a rusted old car.
In April, Moreau embarrassed Wilson further by ordering that he abandon his near-complete effort to obtain national accreditation for the police department, which the department had been working towards for two years. In his e-mail message to Wilson dated April 12, 2004, Moreau wrote, "Any Officers working on your so called Accreditation, shall be reassigned to City related police duties."
Also in the spring of 2004, in a further effort to root out malfeasance, Moreau turned his attention to the Adams Library, Central Falls' public library, and the role of independent contractor Plaintiff Donald P. Twohig. "Donald P." (so designated to distinguish him from his son and co-plaintiff Donald D. Twohig) had supported Moreau's opponent, Lee Matthews, for mayor. He attended at least one fundraiser for Matthews, contributed $100 to his campaign, and put up several lawn signs for Matthews around the city.
For thirteen years, Donald P. had worked as an independent contractor, supervising and performing physical renovations to the Adams Library. The Adams Library is operated by the City and staffed by City employees, but its building is owned by a private trust. Renovations to the library were paid for through a grant from the Champlin Foundation. Donald P. drew a salary of approximately $600 a week, and served as general contractor, hiring and overseeing specialty contractors on various projects. According to Moreau, who released this information to the press, over $400,000 of Champlin Foundation money went to Donald P. over a six-year period. Donald P. in turn maintains that this money was paid out by him to the other specialty contractors and workers, including an artist who repaired the library's dome. Moreover, according to Donald P., he received no pay at all for much of the renovation work he performed himself.
Soon after Moreau's inauguration, Donald P. delivered a slide projector to City Hall. While there he was approached by Richard Bessette, an unpaid advisor to Moreau and another co-defendant in this case. Bessette ushered Donald P. into a conference room and, in belligerent tones, asked him if he had a problem. The next week, payments to Donald P. from the Champlin Foundation's restricted receipt account stopped. This account was administered through the City treasury. Apparently, Donald P. was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elias v. Elias
...not have a direct cause of action under the United States Constitution but [rather] must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.'" Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81, 92 (D.R.I. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001)). 6. Un......
-
Riley v. O'Brien
...not have a direct cause of action under the United States Constitution but [rather] must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.'" Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81, 92 (D.R.I. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here,......
-
State v. Koch
...also reviewed on a case by case basis. See, e.g., Donovan v. A.A. Beiro Constr. Co. Inc. , 746 F.2d 894 (D.C.Cir.1984) ; Wilson v. Moreau , 440 F.Supp.2d 81 (D.R.I.2006). {¶ 19} The record establishes that Ameripro was a limited liability company incorporated in Ohio by Mustafa; Mustafa was......
-
Turner W. Branch, P.A. v. William Shane Osborn & Mehaffyweber, PC
...'loss,'" and that Plaintiff therefore has not satisfied CFAA's statutory minimum of $5,000. [Doc. 14 at 24 (citing Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81, 109-10 (D.R.I. 2006) ("[T]he costs of litigation cannot be counted towards the $5,000 threshold")]. Courts consistently have held that cos......
-
§ 7.05 The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.§ 1030)
...not considered a loss because they were not "directly attributable" to the CFAA offender's access to a computer); Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81, 110 (D.R.I. 2006), aff'd, 492 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) (loss within the meaning of the CFAA statute did not include litigation expenses). Se......
-
§ 7.06 Civil Liability Under the CFAA
...loss in excess of $5,000 without other factual details was conclusory and insufficient to sustain a CFAA claim).[431] Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81, 110 (D.R.I. 2006) ("In this case, Plaintiffs suffered no economic harm: their ability to conduct their business was not affected or imp......
-
§ 7.07 Specific Criminal Offenses and Civil Violations Under the CFAA
...of some additional end—to which the unauthorized access is a means—that is lacking here." Id. at 1078.). See also, Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.R.I. 2006) (citing Zubinski).[510] The terms "knowingly" and "intent to defraud" are not defined by § 1030 and there are no reported cri......
-
A Cloudy Forecast: Divergence in the Cloud Computing Laws of the United States, European Union, and China
...is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose . . . .").97. Id. at 442.98. Wilson v. Moreau, 440 F. Supp. 2d 81, 104 (D.R.I. 2006).99. Robison, supra note 9, at 1232.100. Soghoian, supra note 4, at 391. 101. Id.102. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 19......