Davis v. Coakley
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16657
1st Cir.2015Background
- Jason Davis, a mental-health patient at Westborough State Hospital, was beaten by staff in 1993; a jury awarded him compensatory and punitive damages, and punitive damages of $1.025 million were upheld on appeal (Davis v. Rennie).
- The Massachusetts Department of Mental Health indemnified one defendant (Tassone) for compensatory damages but refused to indemnify the other defendants for punitive damages, citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 9; the punitive-damage defendants never paid and the judgment (with fees/interest) remained unpaid at approximately $2.1 million.
- In 2009 Joshua Messier died after being restrained at Bridgewater State Hospital; the Messier estate sued and the Commonwealth settled in 2014 for $2 million.
- Jason’s estate (through William H. Davis as personal representative) demanded that Governor Patrick and Attorney General Coakley indemnify the Davis punitive-damage judgment, alleging equal protection and due process violations because the Commonwealth paid the Messier settlement but refused to pay Davis’s punitive award.
- The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Davis and Messier estates were not similarly situated under § 9 and that no constitutionally protected property interest was alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection: Were Davis and Messier similarly situated such that treating them differently violated equal protection? | Davis: Commonwealth indemnified Messier (via settlement) despite § 9 allegedly prohibiting indemnification for intent-based civil rights claims; refusing Davis indemnity was selective treatment. | Commonwealth: § 9 allows indemnification for intentional torts/civil-rights claims unless employee acted grossly negligent, willful, or malicious; punitive damages in Davis rested on such a finding, so § 9 barred indemnification for Davis but did not bar settlement in Messier. | Held: Not similarly situated; § 9 plausibly bars indemnifying Davis’s punitive award due to jury finding of malicious conduct, while no such finding (and defendants denied wrongdoing) existed in Messier. |
| Due Process: Did settlement of Messier create a protected property interest entitling Davis to indemnification? | Davis: Payment to Messier via "executive fiat" created an indemnification benefit/property interest; denying Davis that benefit deprived him of property without due process. | Commonwealth: No protected property interest was created; settlement did not alter § 9 or create an entitlement; at most plaintiff had a unilateral expectation. | Held: No protected property interest alleged; due process claim fails and dismissal was proper. |
| Whether settlement admission or facts in Messier equate to Davis’s jury findings | Davis: Settlement indicates Commonwealth viewed claims as similar and thus created a basis for comparison. | Commonwealth: Messier defendants expressly denied wrongdoing in the settlement; settlement does not equate to a finding of grossly negligent/willful/malicious conduct required to trigger § 9 prohibition. | Held: Settlement is not an admission; record shows no basis to treat the cases as equivalent. |
| Plausibility at Rule 12(b)(6): Did complaint state a viable constitutional claim? | Davis: Allegations suffice to infer selective treatment and deprivation of rights given disparate outcomes. | Commonwealth: Complaint rests on legal error about § 9 and fails to plead facts showing similarly situated persons or a protected interest. | Held: Complaint fails to state an equal protection or due process claim; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Rennie, 264 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2001) (underlying civil-rights trial and punitive-damages judgment in Davis’s favor)
- Tambone v. SEC, 597 F.3d 436 (1st Cir. 2010) (documents incorporated into complaint may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bessette v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 230 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Venuti v. Riordan, 702 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1983) (recognizing § 9 indemnification for civil-rights liability)
- Triplett v. Town of Oxford, 791 N.E.2d 310 (Mass. 2003) (discussing § 9’s grant of discretion to indemnify for intentional torts and civil-rights violations)
- Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (protected property interest requires entitlement created by independent source such as state law)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (unilateral expectations are insufficient to create property interests)