Fernandes v. Sena

DANIEL FERNANDES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SENA, Former Correctional Officer, BROCK MORRIS, Former Correctional Officer, EDWARD BOULEY, Former Lieutenant, JOHN MURPHY, Former Captain, STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent, Bristol County Sheriff's Department, THOMAS M. HODGSON, Sheriff, Bristol County, and BRISTOL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-11612-GAO

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 29, 2021

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The magistrate judge to whom this matter was referred has filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss be ALLOWED as to the assault and battery claim against Bristol County Sherriff's Office (“BCSO”) (Count VI) ALLOWED as to the state constitutional claim as to BCSO Thomas M. Hodgson, and Steven J. Souza (Count V); ALLOWED as to the § 1983 claim against BCSO and against Hodgson and Souza in their official capacities (Count IV); but DENIED as to the § 1983 claim against Hodgson and Souza in their individual capacities (Count IV). No. objections to the R & R have been filed.

After review of the relevant pleadings and submissions, I concur with the magistrate judge's analysis and proposed ruling and therefore ADOPT the R&R (dkt. no. 25) in its entirety.

The defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 8) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the magistrate judge's recommendations.

It is SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DANIEL FERNANDES, Plaintiff, v.

EDWARD BOULEY, Former Lieutenant BRISTOL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE JOHN MURPHY, Former Captain MICHAEL SENA, Former Correctional Officer THOMAS M. HODGSON, Sheriff, Bristol County BROCK MORRIS, Former Correctional Officer STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent, Bristol County Sheriff's Department, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-11612-GAO^[1]

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS, BRISTOL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THOMAS M. HODGSON, AND STEVEN J. SOUZA'S, MOTION TO DISMISS (#8).

I. Introduction.

Daniel Fernandes brought suit against seven defendants in connection with an incident in which he was beaten by Correctional Officer Michael Sena on October 24, 2017, when Fernandes was in custody awaiting trial at the Ash Street Jail in New Bedford. (#1.) Three of the defendants, the Bristol County Sheriff's Office (BCSO), the Sheriff of Bristol County, Thomas M. Hodgson, and the Superintendent of the Bristol County Sheriff's Office, Steven J. Souza, have moved to dismiss all claims against them (Counts IV-VI) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (##8, 9.)^[2]Fernandes opposes the motion. (#11.) The court heard oral argument on June 28, 2021. (##20, 22, 23.)

Count IV of the complaint alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to train or supervise against BCSO and against Hodgson and Souza in their individual and official capacities. (#1 ¶¶9-10, 151-157.) Count V alleges a violation of Article I of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights against all defendants, including against BCSO and against Hodgson and Souza in their individual and official capacities. (#1 ¶¶9-10, 158-164.) Count VI alleges assault and battery against Sena and BCSO. (#1 ¶¶165-168.)

For the reasons that follow, the court recommends that the motion to dismiss Count IV, the § 1983 claim against BCSO and against Hodgson and Souza in their official capacities, be ALLOWED, but recommends that the motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim against Hodgson and Souza in their individual capacities be DENIED. The court recommends that the motion to dismiss Count V, the state constitutional claim, against BCSO, Hodgson, and Souza be ALLOWED. Finally, Fernandes concedes that Count VI should be dismissed against BCSO (#11 at 20) and the court recommends that the motion to dismiss Count VI, the assault and battery claim against BCSO, be ALLOWED.

II. Standard of Review.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) challenges a complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In determining whether a complaint adequately states a claim, the court

isolate[s] and ignore[s] statements in the complaint that simply offer legal labels and conclusions or merely rehash cause-of-action elements, then take[s] the complaint's well-plead (i.e., non-conclusory, non-speculative) facts as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor….

Justiniano v. Walker, 986 F.3d 11, 19 (1st Cir. 2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). See Parker v. Landry, 935 F.3d 9, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2019). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-556 (2007)).^[3] The determination is fact-specific and requires the court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

A complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, Haley, 657 F.3d at 46 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, but it must set out sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is “plausible” on its face. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678)). See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 570. The plausibility requirement is not a “probability” requirement; it only demands “more than a sheer possibility” that a party is liable for the misconduct alleged. Justiniano, 986 F.3d at 19 (punctuation omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. If the court cannot discern more than a sheer possibility from the factual allegations, then the complaint has not shown “that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (punctuation omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

III. The Complaint.

On October 24, 2017, Sena and Morris were correctional officers at the Ash Street Jail; Bouley was a lieutenant; and Murphy was a captain and was acting as “Watch Commander.” (#1 ¶¶1, 5-8.) Fernandes alleges that on that day, Sena beat him while Morris and Bouley were present, and then Sena, while Bouley was present, and Murphy interfered with his access to medical care. Id. ¶¶13-41, 132-150.

BCSO “oversees and is responsible for the operation and policies of several facilities in Bristol County, including the Ash Street Jail.” It “is a subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ” and a “public employer” as defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258. Id. ¶11.

At all times relevant to the complaint, Hodgson was the Sheriff of Bristol County. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 126, § 16, Hodgson is responsible for “the custody and control of all prisoners committed to correctional facilities run by” BCSO and for “the creation of policies governing the facility and proper training and supervision of his staff and subordinates.” Hodgson is sued in his individual and official capacities. Id. ¶10.

Souza was the Superintendent of BCSO and “has responsibility over the management and operation of the Ash Street Jail, including training and supervising the personnel and ensuring the lawful care and custody of the individuals detained there.” Souza is also sued in his individual and official capacities. Id. ¶9.

On October 24, 2017, Fernandes was taking a nap in a cell when Morris and Bouley woke him up. They were there to conduct the third search of Fernandes' cell in as many days. Id. ¶¶13-14. They ordered Fernandes to submit to a strip search; he complied. Morris then placed Fernandes in handcuffs and sat him outside the cell while Morris and Bouley searched it. Fernandes was cooperative during the cell search. Id. ¶15. While Bouley and Morris were searching, Sena abandoned his post at “the Block Gate, ” which was on a different floor and on the opposite side of the building from the area where Fernandes' cell was located, and went to Fernandes' cell. Id. ¶16. Neither Morris nor Bouley had asked Sena to join them. Sena, without authority, had instructed another officer to cover his post. Id.

Morris and Bouley found a pair of sneakers in Fernandes' cell. Bouley asked Fernandes if he had a receipt from the commissary for them. Fernandes explained that a friend who was being released gave the sneakers to him as a gift. He pleaded with Morris and Bouley to let him keep them. Id. ¶17. Sena arrived and stood outside the cell with Fernandes, who was still handcuffed. Id. ¶18. Morris and Bouley stepped out of the cell and stood outside the door. Id. ¶19. Sena pulled Fernandes to his feet and led him into the cell. Id. Fernandes, still handcuffed, turned to look back at Bouley as he talked to him. Upset about the cell searches and sneakers, Fernandes called the officers names. Id. ¶20.

Sena punched Fernandes on the right side of his head multiple times. Fernandes lost his balance and landed on his knees on the bed. Sena grabbed the back of Fernandes' head and smashed his face into the cement wall several times, causing a deep gash above his left eye. He then punched Fernandes in his left eye. Fernandes fell onto the bed, partially on his back. Sena, wearing heavy boots, then kicked Fernandes in the groin at least four times. Sena also stepped on Fernandes' handcuffs to tighten them, causing his wrists to bleed. Id. ¶¶21-25.

Although they were standing right outside the cell, Morris and Bouley did not do anything in response to Sena's attack on Fernandes. After Sena had been left alone with Fernandes, beating him, for 9 to 10 seconds, Morris and Bouley casually entered the cell. Morris said to Sena: “Come on, that's enough.” Id. ¶¶26-27.

Bouley instructed Morris and Sena to bring Fernandes to the medical unit, as protocol required after any physical altercation. Morris and Sena got Fernandes to his feet and the three officers escorted him there. While in route, Sena...