Pope v. City of Boston

1

JOSEPH JABIR POPE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BOSTON, et al., Defendants.

No. 24-cv-10980-DJC

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

November 7, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Denise J. Casper United States District Judge

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Joseph Jabir Pope (“Pope”), has filed this lawsuit against Defendants the City of Boston (the “City”), and former Boston Police Detectives and Officers Peter J. O'Malley (“O'Malley”) James T. Curran (“Curran”), Robert Flynn (“Flynn”) in their individual capacities, (the “Officer Defendants”) and John and Jane Does Nos 1-20 (collectively, the “Defendants”) concerning the Defendants' policies, practices, training and role in Pope's conviction of the fatal shooting in 1984 that was overturned by the Suffolk County Superior Court on October 24, 2022. D. 1 at 1-4. Pope alleges a violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts II-V) and claims of a civil rights conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law (Counts VI and VIII), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IX), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count X), and malicious prosecution (Count XI) against the Officer Defendants and John and Jane Does No. 1-20, and a Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I), a state law negligent training and supervision claim (Count VII) and state law respondeat superior claim (Count XII) against the City. D. 1 at 19-30. The City has moved to dismiss Counts I, VII and XII against them, D. 21, but withdrew its challenge to Count XII at oral argument. D. 46 at 4-5. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the City's motion to dismiss Counts I and VII.

II. Standard of Review

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must determine if the facts alleged “plausibly narrate a claim for relief.” Germanowski v. Harris, 854 F.3d 68, 71 (1st Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reading the complaint “as a whole,” the Court must conduct a two-step, context-specific inquiry. Garda-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013). First, the Court must perform a close reading of the claim to distinguish the factual allegations from the conclusory legal allegations contained therein. Id. Factual allegations must be accepted as true, while conclusory legal conclusions are not entitled credit. Id. Second, the Court must determine whether the factual allegations present a “reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). In sum, the complaint must provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to find the claim “plausible on its face.” Garda-Catalan, 734 F.3d at 103 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

III. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from Pope's complaint, D. 1, and are accepted as true for the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss.

Pope was convicted of first-degree felony murder and armed robbery for the May 23, 1984 fatal shooting of Efrain DeJesus (“ED”) and was incarcerated for nearly thirty-eight years. D. 1 ¶¶ 3, 5. The primary evidence presented at trial connecting Pope with the murder was the testimony of the victim's brother “BD” whom Defendants allegedly “coerced and induced . . . into fabricating evidence” that Pope robbed BD at gun point, taking some money and cocaine from him. Id. ¶ 5. There was also evidence that allegedly was suppressed by police that could have aided Pope's defense including, but not limited to, that BD had provided inconsistent versions of his story and O'Malley, who interviewed BD, did not credit BD's story. Id. ¶ 7. In June 2022, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered a new trial based in part on the fact that the Boston Police Department (“BPD”) had withheld exculpatory evidence. Id. ¶ 8. On October 24, 2022, the Suffolk Superior Court vacated Pope's convictions and the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office nolle prossed the case after conducting a “thorough and comprehensive review.” Id. ¶ 9.

A. Exculpatory Evidence Issues with the Investigation and Trial

As alleged, discovery after Pope's conviction suggested that evidence was withheld from his defense and that BD was influenced by the BPD to change his statements to avoid criminal charges against him. Id. ¶ 10. Assistant District Attorney Robert Goodale documented BD's statements at the police station when he was interviewed (the “Goodale Memo”), which was purportedly not disclosed to the defense. Id. ¶¶ 36, 50. These statements by BD in the Goodale Memo were inconsistent with accounts he later made during the probable cause hearing and at trial and his statements allegedly “evolved” to support the Commonwealth's theory of felony murder. Id. ¶¶ 37-39. The Goodale Memo also included impressions from O'Malley that he was skeptical of BD's story. Id. ¶¶ 37, 43(f). O'Malley purportedly knew that cocaine had been found in BD's house after the alleged robbery, which suggested that a robbery of cocaine had not occurred. Id. ¶ 43(f). The Goodale Memo also included documentation that Flynn had recovered ten packets of purported cocaine from the house on the night of ED's murder but the police produced no drugs and allegedly claimed no drugs were found at the scene. Id. ¶ 46.

O'Malley, Curran and Flynn were involved in the investigation of ED's murder and interviewed BD. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. The complaint alleges that O'Malley, Curran and Flynn provided untruthful testimony concerning whether BPD had found cocaine at the scene of the crime and that BD had fabricated evidence of an armed robbery.^[1] Id. ¶¶ 10, 46, 55. BPD, and specifically O'Malley, assisted BD in telling a false story, including that he was not a drug dealer. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49, 51. Despite the inconsistencies in BD's story, BPD did not investigate other individuals, including an individual who was found in possession of the murder weapon. Id. ¶ 43, 58. Other evidence was also not properly maintained by BPD and was not produced, including the 911 recording of BD as well as BPD's notes of BD's interview the night of the incident. Id. ¶ 54.

B. Alleged Pattern of Misconduct Within BPD for Handling Evidence

The complaint alleges that, in the 1970s and 1980s, the BPD purportedly withheld and fabricated evidence that led to other wrongful convictions. Id. ¶ 70. In 1992, a Management Review Committee report by James St. Clair (the “St. Clair Committee Report”) detailed inadequate training, supervision and discipline within BPD. Id. ¶¶ 71-72. In particular, the complaint alleges that O'Malley has been involved in other criminal cases where evidence has purportedly been fabricated or there have been flawed evidentiary procedures and he has previously been suspended for failing to file a report and covering up an incident in which his partner was injured. Id. ¶¶ 59-67. O'Malley was also the lead investigator into the murder of Carol Stuart, (the “Stuart Investigation”), which was a botched criminal investigation because O'Malley purportedly pressured witnesses to give false information and procured search warrants based on that false information. Id. ¶ 63.

IV. Procedural History

Pope initiated this action on April 17, 2024. D. 1. The City has moved to dismiss the § 1983 Monell claim and state law negligent training and supervision and respondeat superior claims against it (Counts I, VII and XII), D. 21, but later withdrew the motion as to Count XII. D. 46 at 4-5. The Court heard the parties on the pending motion and took the matter under advisement.^[2] D. 41, 46.

V. Discussion

A. Monell Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I)

Pope alleges that the City violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on various BPD's policies and practices concerning the preparation and presentation of witness testimony, fabricating, withholding, and destroying evidence, inducing false testimony, suppressing statements that were legally required to be provided to the defense, deliberately failing to investigate the actual perpetrators, assisting potential exculpatory witnesses in being unable to testify, engaging in improperly suggestive identification procedures, and failure to properly supervise, train and discipline its employees for withholding material evidence or fabricating false evidence. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-2, 78-80, 82-83, 85.

Although “[a] municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory,” § 1983 does impose “liability on a government that, under color of some official policy, causes an employee to violate another's constitutional rights.” Monell v Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A municipality's failure to train or supervise its officers may amount to a “policy or custom” for purposes of § 1983 liability only where the inadequate training shows “deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388-89 (1989). “[D]eliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault,” such that “[a] showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 407, 411 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A city may be deemed deliberately indifferent when it is “on actual or constructive notice that a particular omission in [its] training program causes [officers] to violate citizens' constitutional rights” and fails to properly respond, either by providing appropriate training or through disciplinary action. Connick v. Thompson, 563...