168 F. Supp. 3d 365
D. Mass.2016Background
- On Jan 26, 2012, Karim Watson and Kimberly Espino were in Worcester District Court when court officer Luis Perez ordered Watson to leave; a physical altercation followed as Watson exited into an anteroom.
- Plaintiffs allege Perez struck Watson, and officers Daniel DiStefano and Stephen Donovan restrained and further beat him; Timothy O’Leary and David Deignan allegedly assisted or failed to intervene. Watson, who has one lung, was choked face-down and injured.
- Espino (visibly pregnant) recorded the beating on a work-issued phone; Officer Sherri Glenn removed and later arrested her at Regional Security Director Robin Yancey’s direction. Both Plaintiffs were charged in state court.
- Espino’s phone was retained by Yancey at the request of First Assistant DA Daniel Bennett for ~3 months; when returned in counsel’s presence the phone’s contents, including the video, were erased.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and common law for excessive force, failure to intervene, assault, battery, false arrest, IIED, and a conspiracy/cover-up claim; defendants moved to partially dismiss and to stay remaining claims pending state-court proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Count I) | Watson and Espino were subjected to unconstitutional, excessive force by named officers | Force was reasonable/justified; some officers only made minor contact or vague assistance | Dismissed as to Glenn, Deignan, O’Leary; survived as to Perez, DiStefano, Donovan |
| Failure to intervene (Count II) | Officers who witnessed the assault failed to stop it | Defendants did not challenge this count | Motion denied (claim survives) |
| Assault, battery, IIED (Counts III, IV, VI) | Officers committed state-law torts independent of § 1983 | Reasonable force is a defense; state-law claims rise/fall with § 1983 excessive-force analysis | Dismissed as to Glenn, Deignan, O’Leary, and as to Espino; survived as to Perez, DiStefano, Donovan (as to Watson) |
| False/wrongful arrest (Count V) | Arrests were warrantless and lacked probable cause | Arrestees lacked specificity as to which officer placed arrests | Motion denied; claim survives (probable-cause question not resolved) |
| Conspiracy/cover-up re: erased phone (Count VII) | Yancey and Bennett agreed to delete evidence on Espino’s phone | Allegations do not plausibly show an agreement or independent constitutional deprivation from the erasure | Dismissed for failure to plausibly plead agreement or a resulting constitutional injury |
| Stay/abstention re: pending state charges | Plaintiffs seek to proceed in federal court now | Defendants request stay until state prosecution ends; cite Heck and Younger principles | Claims that survive dismissal are stayed pending resolution of related state criminal proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for pleading plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must show entitlement to relief; plausibility standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force claims governed by Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" standard)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable cause for warrantless arrest assessed from officer's knowledge)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (federal civil claims related to pending criminal charges may be stayed)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§ 1983 claims that would invalidate a conviction are barred until conviction is overturned)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions)
- Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (Younger abstention principles apply to declaratory relief)
- Raiche v. Pietroski, 623 F.3d 30 (Massachusetts assault/battery claims parallel § 1983 excessive-force analysis)
- Jennings v. Jones, 499 F.3d 2 (excessive-force reasonableness judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)
- Bastien v. Goddard, 279 F.3d 10 (serious injury not prerequisite to recovery in excessive-force context)
- Rossi v. Gemma, 489 F.3d 26 (Stay/abstention where federal ruling would affect pending state prosecution)
- Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright, 548 F.3d 155 (conspiracy requires facts supporting an agreement)