Humphrey v. Comoletti

FRED HUMPHREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFREY COMOLETTI, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-14170-ADB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

March 31, 2017

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BURROUGHS, D.J.

In this civil rights action, Fred Humphrey ("Humphrey"), Taneisha Humphrey, and J.B., a minor, ("Plaintiffs") allege that Humphrey was assaulted and injured by members of the Fall River Police Department during the execution of a search warrant in a private home on December 21, 2012. Before the Court are Defendant Jeffrey Comoletti's second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [ECF No. 40], Defendants John Cabral and William Falandys' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [ECF No. 42], and Defendant City of Fall River, Massachusetts' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 45]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Comoletti's [ECF No. 40], Falandys' and Cabral's [ECF No. 42], and the City of Fall River's [ECF No. 45] motions.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs initiated this action on December 18, 2015 against Jeffrey Comoletti; William J. Falandys; John Cabral; City of Fall River, Massachusetts; and John Does 1 through 7 (the "Defendants"). [ECF No. 1]. All of the individual defendants who were members of the Fall River Police Department are sued in both their individual and official capacities. The Defendants filed several motions to dismiss. Shortly after opposing the motions, Plaintiffs moved to amend the original complaint on June 30, 2016, [ECF No. 31]. On August 3, 2016, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and denied without prejudice the then-pending motions to dismiss as moot. [ECF No. 35]. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 37]. On August 25, 2016, Comoletti filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. [ECF No. 40]. On September 2, 2016, Cabral and Falandys and the City of Fall River separately filed motions to dismiss. [ECF Nos. 42, 45]. Plaintiffs opposed all three motions. [ECF Nos. 47, 48, 53, 52].¹

II. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Humphrey is a resident of Newport, Rhode Island. At the time of the incident, he resided with his two minor daughters, Plaintiffs Taneisha Humphrey (who has now reached the age of majority) and J.B. (who is still a minor). Taneisha and J.B. are residents of Connecticut.

On December 20, 2012, Humphrey and his business associate, Christopher Stephens, sold a go-kart to Comoletti, which was the second go-kart that Comoletti had purchased from Humphrey and Stephens. In exchange, Comoletti gave Humphrey and Stephens an unspecified amount of cash, plus a tablet device. Soon thereafter, Humphrey and Stephens realized that the tablet device was not worth what Comoletti had said it was. They contacted Comoletti, who allegedly threatened both Humphrey and Stephens by stating, among other things, that members of Comoletti's family were in the Fall River Police Department and that eight officers of the Fall River Police Department would show up at Stephens' apartment at an unspecified time.

On December 21, 2012, Comoletti filed a complaint against Stephens with the Weymouth Police Department. Specifically, Comoletti reported that Stephens was selling AK-47s and had a large amount of marijuana at his apartment in Fall River. Plaintiffs allege that Comoletti knewthese statements were false at the time he made them. Plaintiffs further allege that Comoletti knew that Humphrey was not a resident of Fall River, Massachusetts but that he spent most days with Stephens. On the same day, a Weymouth police officer passed this information on to Falandys, a Detective in the Fall River Police Department. On the basis of the information from Comoletti, Falandys applied for and received a search warrant for Stephens' apartment.

Later that day, Falandys, Cabral (another detective in the Fall River Police Department), and seven unnamed Fall River Police Officers, whom Plaintiffs have named as John Doe Defendants (collectively, the "Officer Defendants"), executed the search warrant. At the time the search warrant was executed, both Stephens and Humphrey were inside Stephens' apartment. The officers ordered Humphrey to lie down on the ground during the search. Plaintiffs allege that as Humphrey was getting down on the floor, "at least one of" the Officer Defendants kicked him in the head several times, causing him to lose consciousness. None of the Officer Defendants intervened or helped Humphrey. They also failed to provide medical aid or call an ambulance. When Humphrey regained consciousness shortly afterwards, he asked why he had been kicked in the head. One of the Officer Defendants allegedly responded that "some people deserved to be kicked." The inventory, which Falandys signed in the presence of Cabral, reports "Nothing Found," including no "illegally possessed assault weapons, machine guns, firearms, shotguns, ammunition,[and] feeding devices," or "[a]ny paraphernalia, or instrumentalities, related to the use, sales, manufacture, defacement, and distribution, of said illegal weapons." [ECF No. 37-1 at 1]. Neither Humphrey nor Stephens were ever charged with resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer.

Plaintiffs assert that the Officer Defendants were acting under color of law during the relevant time period. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that Falandys and other members of the FallRiver Police Department have previously assaulted citizens without just cause, which in at least one instance in 2011 resulted in a citizen's death. The City of Fall River has settled prior cases brought against Falandys and other officers in connection with these alleged assaults. Plaintiffs also argue that the City of Fall River has failed to provide adequate training, supervision, and discipline and that the Officer Defendants' actions when executing the search warrant were undertaken pursuant to the City's and police department's "policy, practice and action." Compl. ¶¶ 51-52. Further, Plaintiffs allege that the City had a policy or custom of hiring offers with a propensity for violence and abusing authority. Plaintiff, who is African-American, alleges that the majority, if not all of the officers involved in the assault, were Caucasian.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

The Amended Complaint includes seven claims for relief. Count I alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the Officer Defendants violated Humphrey's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by using unreasonable force against Humphrey while they executed the search warrant at Stephens' apartment. Count II alleges that the Officer Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to violate Humphrey's constitutional rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Count III asserts a § 1983 Monell² claim against the City of Fall River on the grounds that "[i]t was the custom, policy, and/or practice of the City of Fall River to provide inadequate training and/or supervision to its police officers" regarding "their duties, responsibilities and conduct towards persons of color; use of force; and preventing abuse of authority," and that the City has been "deliberately indifferent" in hiring, training, supervising, and disciplining officers in this regard. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the City was aware of Falandys' propensity for violence because of a prior incident in 2011 when an individual died during the execution of asearch warrant. Count IV purports to assert a claim for "vicarious liability" against the City of Fall River because the Officer Defendants acted within the course and scope of their employment during the relevant time period.

Count V asserts claims against the Officer Defendants under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I (the "MCRA").

Counts VI and VII pertain to Comoletti alone. Count VI alleges an abuse-of-process claim that is based on Comoletti's threats to Humphrey and Stephens, coupled with his knowing and intentional provision of false information to the Weymouth police. Count VII alleges a violation of the MCRA based on the same threats and acts of intimidation, and further that Comoletti knew the false information would be used by the Weymouth Police Department to obtain a search warrant of Stephens' residence in Fall River, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs allege that the threats and intimidation interfered with Humphrey's exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Massachusetts constitution and its laws.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the above actions, Humphrey suffered severe physical injuries and emotional distress, and that his daughters suffered a loss of consortium with their father.³ As relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the City of Fall River violated Humphrey's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because of its customs, policies, and/or practices by failing to provide adequate training regarding the use of force on individuals that are not targets of search warrants and by being deliberately indifferent in training, supervising, and disciplining officers and supervisors regarding their duties, responsibilities, and conduct towards people ofcolor. Plaintiffs also seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, legal interest, and costs.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Rule 12(b)(6)"), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts, analyze those facts in the light most hospitable to the plaintiff's theory, and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. U.S. ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Med. Inc., 647 F.3d 377, 383 (1st Cir. 2011). Aside from the complaint, "within the Rule 12(b)(6) framework, a court may consider matters of public record and facts susceptible to judicial notice." U.S. ex rel. Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp., 827 F.3d 201, 208 (1st...