22 F. Supp. 3d 94
D. Mass.2014Background
- Lund filed a nine-count complaint against Henderson, Walcek, Joyce, and Wareham over events on August 22, 2008 in Onset Village, including false arrest, assault, IIED, §1983, and state civil-rights claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on September 9, 2013, with briefs, statements of facts, and exhibits; Lund responded with disputed facts and additional exhibits.
- Judge Gorton adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied/allowed portions of the motion consistent with the magistrate’s recommendations.
- Key disputed facts concern who arrested Lund, whether probable cause existed, and the extent of force used; the record shows conflicting deposition testimony about Lund’s interactions with Walcek and Henderson.
- The court analyzes federal §1983 claims first, then state-law claims, and concludes that several claims remain triable issues of fact, while others are resolved in favor of the defendants.
- Lund admitted to pleading guilty to related charges, affecting the Malicious Prosecution claim; the court recommends denying summary judgment for several counts but granting it on some (IIED, MCRA, Malicious Prosecution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henderson or Walcek had probable cause for Lund’s arrest. | Lund�s version supports arrest without probable cause. | Dispute exists as to which officer arrested Lund; probable cause may be present. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; denial of summary judgment warranted. |
| Whether the use of force against Lund was excessive | Henderson dragged, cuffed, and head-touched Lund. | Force used reasonably to effect arrest; facts disputed. | Genuine issue of material fact; denial of summary judgment warranted. |
| Whether §1983 claims against the municipal defendants fail or survive | Monell claims may be viable given conceded facts. | If §1983 claims against officers survive, Monell claim also survives. | Summary judgment denied as to related municipal claims. |
| Whether Lund’s false arrest/false imprisonment claim should be dismissed | Arrest without probable cause and unjustified confinement. | Arguably lawful arrest; facts disputed. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether Lund’s MCRA claim fails for lack of coercion or threats | MCRA premises violated by police conduct. | No coercion/threats shown under facts. | Summary judgment granted for defendants on MCRA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goddard v. Kelley, 629 F.Supp.2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009) (MCRA does not apply to a direct constitutional violation without coercion)
- Robinson v. Cook, 863 F.Supp.2d 49 (D. Mass. 2012) (Probable cause analysis and false arrest claims in §1983 context)
- Kennedy v. Town Of Billerica, 617 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2010) (Assault and battery standards for police use of force)
- Raiche v. Pietroski, 623 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2010) (Massachusetts battery/excessive force standard in arrest context)
- Wynne v. Rosen, 464 N.E.2d 1348 (Mass. 1984) (Terms for favorable termination in malicious prosecution)
- Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2010) (Ulterior purpose in abuse of process—need more than groundless claim)
- Earle v. Benoit, 850 F.2d 836 (1st Cir. 1988) (Malicious prosecution standards and link to arrest legality)