Alicea v. Wilcox et al

Filing 103

Judge Richard G. Stearns: SHOW CAUSE ORDER entered. (Zierk, Marsha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-12231-RGS
EUSEBIO ALICEA
v.
CITY OF LAWRENCE

ORDER ON NOTICE OF COURT’S INTENT TO DISMISS
THE REMAINING CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF LAWRENCE
August 31, 2012
STEARNS, D.J.
This § 1983 civil rights case was brought against a number of City of Lawrence
police officers, the Chief of the Lawrence Police, the Mayor of Lawrence, and the City
itself, see Monnell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Over the course of
the litigation, most of the individual defendants were dismissed and the case went to
trial in May of 2011 on a claim of the excessive use of force against the plaintiff by
defendant officer Kyle Wilcox. On May 11, 20011, the jury returned a substantial
verdict for plaintiff, $15,000 on each of the reciprocal federal and state civil rights
claims, and a $100,000 award of punitive damages. On May 18, 2011, judgment
entered for plaintiff Eusebio Alicea and Wilcox filed a notice of appeal (which was
later withdrawn).

Recognizing the difficulty plaintiff might encounter in enforcing the judgment,
the court, following its usual practice, see Wilson v. Town of Mendon, 294 F.3d 1, 7
(1st Cir. 2002), bifurcated the Monnell claim against the City of Lawrence and stayed
the case in this session while several other cases involving similar allegations against
officer Wilcox were resolved. To the court’s knowledge, Wilcox has been terminated
by the City of Lawrence and the various cases in which he was a defendant are now
completed. As the court sees no legal theory that would attach liability in this case to
the City of Lawrence over and above the award already returned, cf. Los Angeles v.
Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (per curiam), it is the court’s intention, unless
plaintiff can show cause otherwise, to now lift the stay and close the case.1
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff will have fourteen (14) days from the date of
this Order to show cause why the stay should not be lifted and the case should not be
closed.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns

1

If the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, which may be awarded to a prevailing
plaintiff in a civil rights action pursuant to the Fees Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, has not been
resolved with the City of Lawrence as part of a global settlement, plaintiff will have
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an appropriate petition.
2

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3