Castagna et al v. Jean et al

Filing 81

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLOWING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 34 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; DENYING AS MOOT 61 MOTION for Discovery & 74 MOTION for Protective Order. Plaint iffs have leave to file a first amended complaint substituting John Doe defendants for Defendants hereby dismissed. Such amended complaint may be filed no later than November 14, 2016. Defendants shall answer the operative complaint no later t han November 28, 2016. See Attached Order. Richard DeVoe, Jon-Michael Harber, Clifton Haynes, Harry Jean, Keith Kaplan, Gavin McHale, Kamau Pritchard, William Samaras, Stephen Smigliani, Jay Tully, Donald Wightman, Jean Moise Acloque and Michael Bizzozero terminated.(DaSilva, Carolina)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CHRISTOPHER CASTAGNA AND
GAVIN CASTAGNA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARRY JEAN et al.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 15-cv-14208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
November 4, 2016
TALWANI, D.J.
I.

Introduction
Plaintiffs Christopher Castagna and Gavin Castagna commenced the above-captioned

action against eighteen named Boston Police officers and two pseudonymous Defendants also
alleged to be Boston Police Officers. [Dkt. # 1]. The Complaint brings seven counts against some
or all Defendants. The named Defendants now move for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) of the entire complaint as to all but two of the Defendants and dismissal of
certain causes of action as to these two. [Dkt. # 34].
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
II.

The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted as to Thirteen
Named Defendants
The Complaint describes an escalating series of events arising from an alleged altercation

between Plaintiffs and Defendants that occurred in or near Plaintiffs’ home on March 17, 2013,
during a St. Patrick’s Day party. But despite naming Defendants Kamau Pritchard, Stephen

Smigliani, Michael Bizzozero, Jay Tully, William Samaras, Donald Wightman, Jon-Michael
Harber, Keith Kaplan, Gavin McHale and Jean Acloque, the Complaint does not include any
allegations tying these individual Defendants to any specific actions. As to Defendants Harry
Jean, Clifton Haynes, and Richard Devoe, the only specific allegations are that each signed one
or both criminal complaints filed against Plaintiffs. Compl. ¶¶ 59, 60, 65, 66.
The Complaint does include a number of factual allegations directed towards one or more
of the “Defendant Officers.” See e.g. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 33, 39-41, 43, 46, 48, 50-51, 53-55, 57. The
Complaint defines that term as including each of the named Defendant Officers (except
Defendant Devoe), John Doe “and/or” James Doe.” Compl. ¶ 26. With this definition framed in
the alternative, and with many individual allegations against some but not necessarily all of the
“Defendant Officers,” the Complaint provides no certainty as to which Defendant purportedly
committed which, if any, of the alleged wrongful actions. As such, the Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted as to these thirteen Defendants.
Plaintiffs assert that due to the chaotic nature of the events and the limited discovery
available to them, they are unable to be more specific as to which officer engaged in the
wrongdoing. This difficulty does not justify keeping these individuals as named Defendants, but
does support a dismissal without prejudice and permission to proceed against pseudonymous
Defendants.
III.

The Complaint Survives the Motion to Dismiss as to the Remaining Five Named
Defendants
Plaintiffs have included additional facts that, taken as true as this court must on a motion

to dismiss, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to Defendants
Brendan Walsh, Daran Edwards, Anthony Troy, Gary Barker, and Terry Cotton. At minimum,
the Complaint alleges that these five Defendants at some point were inside Plaintiffs’ home and
2

that such entry was without permission or justification. Plaintiffs include additional allegations
as to Daran Edwards and Terry Cotton, and indeed, Defendants seek dismissal of only certain
claims, and not the entire complaint, as to these last two defendants. Defendants urge the court to
make inferences that would preclude the various claims, but the court declines to draw such
adverse inferences on a motion to dismiss.
Without parsing each individual cause of action, the court finds the allegations in the
complaint sufficient to state a claim against these five Defendants, and accordingly, as to these
five Defendants, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
IV.

Conclusion
The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#34] is ALLOWED as to Defendants

Pritchard, Smigliani, Bizzozero, Tully, Samaras, Wightman, Harber, Kaplan, McHale, Acloque,
Jean, Haynes, and Devoe, and Plaintiffs’ claims against them are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#34] is DENIED as to Defendants
Edwards, Cotton, Walsh, Troy and Barker.
Plaintiffs’ conditional Motion for Discovery [#61] and Defendants’ Motion for Protective
Order [#74] are DENIED as MOOT.
Plaintiffs have leave to file a first amended complaint substituting John Doe defendants
for Defendants hereby dismissed. Such amended complaint may be filed no later than November
14, 2016. Defendants shall answer the operative complaint no later than November 28, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 4, 2016

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

3