Powell v. City of Pittsfield

WALTER J. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD, et al., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 18-30146-MGM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

December 14, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS

(Dkt. Nos. 162, 163, 171, 173, 217, 276, 294, 322, 329, 367, 368, 371, 376, 407, 411, 415, 417, 424, 426, 429, 435, 442, 449, 451, 452, and 456)

MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Walter J. Powell ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this action asserting a mix of federal and state-law claims against various defendants in relation to events surrounding his employment with Defendant City of Pittsfield as a police officer.¹ After Plaintiff twice amended his complaint,Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which this court referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson for report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 234.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, two additional motions for leave to file amended complaints, and a motion for a protective order, which were also referred to Judge Robertson. (Dkt. Nos. 301, 326, and 339.) After holding a hearing, Judge Robertson issued seven reports and recommendations addressing these pending motions. (Dkt. Nos. 367, 368, 371, 376, 407, 411, and 417.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a number of objections, but only some raised substantive arguments addressing the merits of the reports and recommendations. Plaintiff also filed motions to recuse, for reconsideration, and numerous other filings requesting no specific relief (as had become a recurring practice throughout this litigation). For the following reasons, the court will ADOPT the reports and recommendations and DENY Plaintiff's pending motions for recusal and reconsideration.

II. BACKGROUND²

Plaintiff's claims stretch back to 1991, when he was terminated from his employment as a police officer for the City of Pittsfield. That same year, he filed his first lawsuit against the city, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. In 1993, Plaintiff and the City of Pittsfield entered a settlement agreement which provided for payment of $81,000 and Plaintiff's reinstatement to the police department. It was not until 1996, however, that Plaintiff was finally reinstated, and in 1997 Plaintiff again sued the City of Pittsfield (along with Edward Reilly and Kathleen Alexander) forrefusing to honor the terms of the 1993 settlement agreement. In 2002, after a bench trial, Judge Michael A. Ponsor found in favor of Plaintiff; the judgment included an award of punitive damages against Alexander. See Powell v. City of Pittsfield, 221 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D. Mass. 2002).

Plaintiff alleges Alexander obstructed and delayed his return to work following the 1993 settlement. One such barrier was a requirement that Plaintiff divest from a taxi and limousine business. After Plaintiff transferred the business to his wife in 1995, two financial institutions filed suit against Plaintiff to recover loaned funds related to the business. Judgment entered against Plaintiff in these collection cases in 1996 and 1997, respectively. See Powell, 221 F. Supp. 2d at 139. As part of the court's holding in his 2002 bench trial, it was found that Plaintiff did "not show[], or attempt[] to show, that he should recover against defendants for the losses he suffered with his business." Id. at 151 n. 9. Judge Ponsor also explained that Plaintiff "was unable to provide documentation or clear testimony about his damages from lost benefits or retirement earnings" and, thus, declined to award damages reflecting "any such losses." Id. at 151.

In 1998, Alexander, in her capacity as City Solicitor for Pittsfield, signed an answer to a trustee process complaint against the city filed by one of Plaintiff's creditors related to losses from the taxi and limousine business. Plaintiff alleges that, due to Alexander's conduct, he was financially harmed for 19 years because of a garnishment on his wages stemming from the trustee process action. Plaintiff alleges he learned about Alexander's role in the garnishment in 2015.

In 2003, Michael Grady, in his capacity as a union representative, secured an agreement with the City of Pittsfield to credit Plaintiff with 35 of the 70 sick days he would have earned had he been employed continuously from 1991 to 1996. The agreement, which Plaintiff signed, did not provide for other lost benefits or retirement earnings for that time period. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. B at 39.) In 2009, Plaintiff requested that the City of Pittsfield restore the other 35 sick days, his vacation time, and retirement benefits for that five-year period, but he was unsuccessful.

In 2014, Plaintiff and his second wife began a two-year divorce, culminating in a Domestic Relations Order ("DRO") awarding a portion of Plaintiff's pension to his second wife.³ In 2016, the Pittsfield Retirement Board accepted and implemented the DRO.

On October 25, 2015, Plaintiff slipped and injured his knee while leaving his house on the way to work. (Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. N at 110.) Plaintiff expected this injury to qualify for injury on duty ("IOD") status, but the City of Pittsfield determined it did not. Plaintiff thereafter requested that his union file a grievance on his behalf, but the union representatives along with union president Andrew Couture delayed in doing so. After Chief Michael Wynn denied a grievance filed by the union on Plaintiff's behalf, and Plaintiff filed additional grievances, the City of Pittsfield in April of 2016 restored all of the sick and vacation time Plaintiff used to recover from his knee injury, treated Plaintiff as having been at full pay status during his sick leave, reimbursed him for co-pays for treatment of the injury, and reimbursed him for taxes withheld from his paychecks during his leave. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. C7 at 55.)

Plaintiff retired from the Pittsfield Police Department on October 1, 2016. On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application to renew his license to carry a firearm ("LTC"), which was set to expire on March 16, 2017. On August 7, 2017, Chief Wynn denied Plaintiff's LTC renewal application on the grounds that Plaintiff was statutorily barred under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(d) as having "been convicted as an adult, or . . . adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child . . . in the Commonwealth, or in another state or federal jurisdiction, for the commission of . . . a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, or sale of controlled substances, as defined in M.G.L. c. 94C, § 1." (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. G-1 at 68.) On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit in Pittsfield District Court challenging the denial of his LTC renewal application. The Pittsfield District Court, on December 13, 2017, reversed Chief Wynn's decision. Thereafter, Plaintiff attemptedunsuccessfully to get his LTC reissued. On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a contempt motion in Pittsfield District Court arguing the city failed to comply with the decision overruling Wynn's denial of the LTC application. Wynn, represented by Richard Dohoney as Pittsfield City Solicitor, responded to the Pittsfield District Court with an affidavit explaining that he had forwarded Plaintiff's application to the Commonwealth Department of Criminal Justice Information Services ("DCJIS") for approval and printing. (Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. G at 70.) The Pittsfield District Court denied Plaintiff's motion for contempt on March 5, 2018. (Dkt. No. 172-10.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Order of Compliance, seeking enforcement of the Pittsfield District Court's reversal order. Wynn in response filed an affidavit of Michaela Dunne, Manager of the Law Enforcement and Justice Services of the DCJIS, explaining that DCJIS did not activate Plaintiff's LTC because of a 1974 New York conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which barred the LTC under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(d)(ii)(F).⁴ Plaintiff alleges the Dunne affidavit was fabricated, but the Pittsfield District Court apparently accepted the affidavit, as it denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Order of Compliance. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 118; Dkt. No. 172-10.)

After his retirement, Plaintiff continued to perform outside detail work for the City of Pittsfield.⁵ In January of 2018, Matthew Kerwood, Pittsfield's Finance Director and Treasurer, wrote to Plaintiff and other retired Pittsfield police officers informing them that the city was changing theway retired officers would be paid for outside detail work. The letter explained that the retired officers would no longer be paid as vendors, based on a recommendation from an outside auditor; their earnings would be subject to state and federal taxes and Medicare tax deductions; and they would need to complete a W-4 form. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. L-1 at 96.) The letter also reminded the retired officers that, as public sector retirees, their public sector hours and earnings were subject to limits under Massachusetts law, which they acknowledged in a signed notice upon retirement (and which Kerwood attached to his letter), and that failure to comply with the limitations "will result in the reduction of your pension." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that this change to his outside detail work reduced the number of hours retired officers could work and their earnings, but as the signed acknowledgement attached to Kerwood's letter makes clear (and as discussed below), the hour and earnings limitations applied prior to the January of 2018 change. (See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 88 (letter responding to Plaintiff from Joseph Connarton, Executive Director of the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission, explaining that the public sector retiree limitations under Massachusetts law "apply regardless of whether a retiree is paid as an employee or as a contractor, consultant or vendor").) In November of 2018, Plaintiff was removed from the outside detail list for the...