Burns v. Croteau
1:19-cv-00007
D.N.H.Jul 2, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Joshua Burns, an inmate at Northern Correctional Facility, alleges that on April 27, 2016 Correctional Officers Croteau and Sweatt used excessive force against him, causing a dislocated right shoulder and ongoing pain and mental-health effects.
- Burns alleges John Doe correction officers were present, witnessed the assault, forcibly removed his clothing afterward, and failed to intervene.
- After the incident, a disciplinary hearing found charges against Burns unfounded and noted he may have been unnecessarily assaulted by officers.
- Burns brings § 1983 claims for excessive force and failure to intervene (Count I) and state-law claims of assault, battery, and emotional-distress claims (Count II) against Croteau and Sweatt (individual capacity).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the failure-to-intervene claim against John Does and several state-law claims; Burns opposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to intervene (John Does) | John Does were present, saw the force, could have prevented it, and had time to act. | Allegations insufficient to plausibly show presence, observation, ability, and time to intervene. | Denied — complaint plausibly pleads presence, observation, ability to intervene, and time. |
| State tort claims: assault & battery (Croteau & Sweatt, individual capacity) | Burns sues officers individually; state-law torts are viable in federal court. | RSA 541-B or Eleventh Amendment immunity bars state tort claims. | Denied — 541-B exceptions and individual-capacity suits allow the claims; Eleventh Amendment inapplicable to individual-capacity claims. |
| State tort claims: intentional & negligent infliction of emotional distress and "catch-all" rights claim | Emotional-distress and catch-all are pleaded. | Defendants moved to dismiss these claims. | Granted — emotional-distress and catch-all claims dismissed. |
| Enhanced compensatory damages listed in Count II | Burns requests enhanced damages. | Defendants argue it is not a separate claim. | Granted in part — court clarifies enhanced compensatory damages is a damages request, not a standalone claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2014) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility standard for complaints)
- Gaudreault v. Salem, 923 F.2d 203 (1st Cir. 1990) (failure-to-intervene liability under § 1983)
- Davis v. Rennie, 264 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2001) (elements for failure-to-intervene claim/jury instructions)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (official-capacity vs individual-capacity suit and Eleventh Amendment implications)