Limone v. U.S.

336 F.Supp.2d 18

Peter J. LIMONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.

Joseph Salvati, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants.

Edward Greco, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.A. 02-10890-NG.

No. CIV.A. 03-11433-NG.

No. CIV.A. 03-10599-NG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

September 17, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James M. Chernetsky, City of Boston Law Department, Boston, MA, for Frank L. Walsh, Defendant.

Thomas R Donohue, City of Boston Law Department, Boston, MA, for Frank L. Walsh, Defendant.

Edwin Durham, Rachlis, Durham, Duff, Adler, Chicago, IL, for Edward Greco, Plaintiff.

Howard Friedman, Law Offices of Howard Friedman, Boston, MA, for Edward Greco, Plaintiff.

Myong J. Joun, Howard Friedman Law Offices, Boston, MA, for Edward Greco, Plaintiff.

Margaret Krawiec, U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for United States of America at U.S. Postal Service, Defendant.

E. Peter Parker, One Commercial Wharf North, Boston, MA, for Paul Rico, Defendant.

Michael Rachlis, Rachlis, Durham, Duff, Adler, Chicago, IL, for Edward Greco, Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS

GERTNER, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  INTRODUCTION .......................................................23
 II.  LEGAL STANDARD .....................................................25
III.  FACTS ..............................................................25
      A.  Factual History ................................................25
          1.  Deegan Murder ..............................................25
          2.  Prosecution ................................................26
          3.  Conviction and Cover-Up ....................................27
          4.  Exoneration ................................................28
          5.  Procedural History .........................................29
 IV.  UNITED STATES' MOTION TO DISMISS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS.............29
      A.  Malicious Prosecution ..........................................29
          1.  Plain Meaning ..............................................31
              a.  The Definitions ........................................31
          2.  Legislative History ........................................33
          3.  Case Law Interpreting § 2680(h) ............................33
          4.  Malicious Prosecution Elements .............................36
          5.  Post-1974 Misconduct .......................................37
      B.  Derivative Claims ..............................................38
      C.  Discretionary Function Exception ...............................39
          1.  Conduct in Question ........................................39
          2.  Discretionary Decision .....................................39
          3.  Policy Considerations ......................................41
  V.  UNITED STATES' MOTION TO DISMISS EDWARD GRECO'S CLAIMS..............41
      A.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ...................42
          1.  The Merits of the Claim ....................................42
          2.  Statute of Limitations .....................................46
              a.  The Discovery Rule .....................................46
              b.  Equitable Tolling and Fraudulent Concealment ...........48
      B.  Loss of Consortium .............................................48
      C.  Civil Conspiracy ...............................................50
 VI.  CONDON'S and WALSH'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS ............................51

A. Claims by Family Members ........................................51
      B. Qualified and Absolute Immunity on all Bivens Claims............53
VII.  CONCLUSION .........................................................54

This memorandum addresses a second round of motions filed by the defendants, motions which yet again seek to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaints.

The first round was filed at various times in 2003, and resulted in a lengthy decision by this Court on July 17, 2003, Limone v. United States, 271 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Mass.2003), which was affirmed on appeal, 372 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. June 10, 2004).¹ The Court has allowed the government to file these additional motions, presumably raising new jurisdictional issues, but no more.² Resolution of these cases has already been delayed far too long.

I. INTRODUCTION

The background of this case is fully detailed in the Court's prior decision. However, since the specific allegations are so relevant to these motions, they will be outlined yet again. See Limone, 271 F.Supp.2d 345.

Plaintiffs accuse the defendants, the United States and various federal³ and state law enforcement officers, of framing Peter Limone ("Limone"), Henry Tameleo ("Tameleo"), Louis Greco ("Greco"), and Joseph Salvati ("Salvati") for the murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan ("Deegan") on March 12, 1965. As a result of the defendants' misconduct, these men were convicted of Deegan's murder in 1968 and sentenced to death; sentences that were later vacated and replaced with life imprisonment. By 2000, all charges were dismissed against the plaintiffs then living, amid a flurry of accusations of a government frame-up and cover-up extending over thirty years.

Plaintiffs allege Deegan was killed by Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") informants Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi ("Flemmi") and Joseph Barboza ("Barboza"), along with Roy French ("French"), Ronald Cassesso ("Cassesso"), and Joseph Martin ("Martin"). According to plaintiffs, the defendants not only withheld this information, but took affirmative steps to keep it hidden during the numerous court and parole proceedings after the trial. Since the defendants wanted to develop Flemmi as an informant, they did not want his participation in the Deegan murders to be known. The result: Limone, Tameleo, Salvati, and Greco were each imprisoned for over thirty years.

The complaints⁴ seek damages under a variety of federal and state law causes of action on behalf of the wrongfully imprisoned individuals and their families.

The United States again insists that the plaintiffs' claims are jurisdictionally barred because the prosecutions and imprisonments at issue occurred prior to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2671-2680. In addition, the government presses a new argument for immunity based on the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.⁵ [Limone docket entry # 183, Salvati docket entry # 6]. The United States also filed an additional motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Edward Greco, the son of Louis Greco, as time-barred or for failure to state a claim [Greco docket entry # 7].

Defendants Dennis Condon ("Condon") and Frank Walsh ("Walsh") move separately to dismiss the claims asserted against them individually. Specifically, Condon moves to dismiss the Bivens claims brought by the Limone and Tameleo families because they do not allege conduct that was intentionally directed at interfering with the family relationship. [Limone docket entry # 217].⁶ Condon asserts the same defense against the Salvati family, and additionally moves that the Salvati complaint be dismissed based on Condon's qualified and/or absolute immunity [Salvati docket entry # 17].⁷ Defendant Walsh asserts the same arguments in support of dismissing the Bivens claims asserted by the Salvati family [Limone docket entry # 221].

For the reasons discussed below, the United States' motions to dismiss are DENIED (Limone docket entry # 183, Salvati docket entry # 6, 7). Walsh's motion is GRANTED (Limone docket entry # 221). Condon's motion against the Limone and Tameleo family members is GRANTED (Limone docket entry # 217), and Condon's motion against the Salvati plaintiffs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (Salvati docket entry # 17).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This case is still at a very preliminary stage. And as I have noted in my first dismissal decision, in adjudicating motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), I must accept all allegations in the complaints as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiffs. See Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254, 255 (1st Cir.1994). The complaints should be dismissed only if "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984).

III. FACTS

A. Factual History

Agents Paul Rico ("Rico") and Dennis Condon ("Condon") were partners working out of the Boston FBI office with responsibility for investigating organized crime in New England. In the course of their work, they cultivated a number of relationships with confidential informants, including Flemmi and Barboza. Rico, Condon, other agents, and their supervisors, including Special Agent in Charge James Handley, "failed to follow proper procedures and guidelines" in handling these informants. Specifically, the agents knew that, notwithstanding their relationship with Flemmi, he kept on committing murders. Indeed, as early as May 22, 1964, the agents were told about a Flemmi comment — "all [he] wants to do now is kill people" and that his stated aspiration was to become the number one "hit man." Again, on March 3, 1965, the agents were advised that alleged crime boss Gennaro J. Angiulo had warned another alleged mobster, Raymond Patriarca, that Flemmi "did not use sufficient common sense when it came to killing people."

Six days later, on March 9, 1965, less than a week before Deegan's murder (the man the plaintiffs were accused of killing), defendants and their supervisors were aware that Flemmi was in line to be a "Top Echelon" informant just when he was also ...