354 F. Supp. 3d 95
D.D.C.2019Background
- On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff experienced a hypoglycemic episode, struck a parked car, and fled despite Officer Spalatro's attempt to stop him.
- Plaintiff was later stopped and handcuffed by Officer LaFleche; Spalatro arrived to identify him.
- While handcuffed and in custody, Spalatro allegedly punched Plaintiff in the face without warning.
- Spalatro did not document the use of force in department reports; other officers (including Cyr and Watkins) also did not report Spalatro's conduct.
- Plaintiff sued alleging excessive force/failure to intervene (Count I), assault and battery (Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III), Section 1983 violation (Count IV), and conspiracy to cover up (Count V).
- Officers Cyr and Watkins moved to dismiss Counts I, III, and V under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted the motion in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading standard on Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint alleges facts plausibly entitling relief; discovery may fill gaps | Defendants contend facts are insufficiently pled | Court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard but allows that discovery may cure information asymmetry; evaluates claims on pleaded facts |
| Count I — Failure to protect / intervene (Fourth Amendment) | Cyr and Watkins were present and failed to intervene to stop Spalatro's assault | Defendants argue mere presence is insufficient; no realistic opportunity to intercede shown | Claim survives: pleaded facts make it plausible Cyr and Watkins could have intervened; discovery may establish awareness/opportunity |
| Count III — Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Mass. law) | If Cyr and Watkins knew Spalatro planned or would assault, their conduct supports IIED claim | Defendants argue absence of facts showing knowledge or extreme/outrageous conduct by them | Claim survives for now: plausibly alleged if defendants were aware; discovery warranted because relevant info is within defendants' control |
| Count V — Conspiracy (Section 1983) | Officers conspired post‑incident to hide the beating by failing to report and preparing false reports | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory and no independent constitutional injury from alleged cover‑up | Claim dismissed: plaintiff did not allege a resulting independent constitutional deprivation from the alleged cover‑up, so conspiracy claim is insufficiently pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard; courts may rely on common sense)
- Gaudreault v. Salem, 923 F.2d 203 (1st Cir.) (duty to intervene when officer has means and opportunity)
- Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422 (1st Cir.) (mere presence insufficient for §1983 liability)
- Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright, 548 F.3d 155 (1st Cir.) (civil‑rights conspiracy may be inferred but requires factual support)
- Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing underlying misconduct from subsequent cover‑up; cover‑up must cause independent constitutional harm)
- Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140 (Mass.) (elements for IIED under Massachusetts law)