Rivet Jr. v. Lowell Police Department et al

Filing 12

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Plaintiff's copy of order in mailroom on 10/11/2018, to be picked up by USPS on 10/12/2018.](PSSA, 3) Modified on 10/11/2018 (PSSA, 3).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
VERNON S. RIVET, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
17-12551-NMG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GORTON, J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this
action without prejudice.
I.

Background
On December 22, 2017, pro se litigant Vernon S. Rivet, Jr.

filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1), the text of which consisted of
the following:
Since the beating I found out that it was all
planned out by Adam Dusheram through Jennifer Allen
Norman’s ex-wife. She told me who was involved with
this all planned out. Nov. 2, 2017 is when she told me
this and said that she would write me a letter. Also
she stated who was involved Normant Wiatne with police
Mike Rapossa with Kaynic Corp, who bought my 36 acre
junk yard and no clean-up of the property. Web site’s
www.townfarmlane.com/ and the pollution done I was
illegally sold I was willed to me in the Book of Willis
by John Bonano who also did time for [?] the machines.
Roge Adam Ducharm. EAL Police, No. 8.17.
Compl. at 1 (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization
standardized in part).

The complaint was accompanied by twenty

pages of exhibits.
On June 15, 2018, the Court issued an order (Dkt. No. 6)
granting Rivet’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and directing him to file an amended complaint.

The Court

explained that his original complaint did not meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“Rule 8(a)(2)”).

The Court explicitly stated that the

amended complaint must identify “what each defendant did that
caused [Rivet] harm or violated his rights, including the dates
and places of that involvement or conduct.”

Id.

Rivet timely filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 7).

While

the amended complaint was more comprehensible than the original
complaint, the claims therin consisted entirely of generalized
statements of wrongdoing.

In a memorandum and order dated July

27, 2018 (Dkt. No. 8), the Court directed Rivet to file a second
amended complaint in which he identified the specific action of
each defendant, including when and where the relevant events
occurred.

The Court specifically directed Rivet to title the

document as a “Second Amended Complaint.”
On September 4, 2018, the Court received an untitled
document from Rivet (Dkt. No. 9), which was docketed as a letter.
Although not captioned as a second amended complaint, the Court
assumes that the document was filed in response to the Court’s
July 27, 2018 memorandum and order.

For ease of reference, the

Court will refer to the document as the second amended
complaint.1
1

On September 6, 2018, Rivet filed a document (Dkt. No. 10)
consisting of the second amended complaint, amended complaint,
original complaint, exhibits to the original complaint, the
Court’s earlier orders. To the extent Rivet filed this document
intending that his three pleadings be treated collectively as his
second amended complaint, the document does not meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2).
2

II.

Discussion
The second amended complaint does not comply with Rule

8(a)(2).

The Court can surmise that Rivet is complaining of a

range of alleged misconduct: he was almost beaten to death by the
Lowell Police Department in 2015; he was falsely accused of
“going after” his former wife; state employees forcibly took sand
from Rivet’s property and replaced it with debris from the “Big
Dig” construction project, causing an aquifer to reroute; a
government employee tore the will of Rivet’s father out of a
“book of wills”; Rivet’s neighbor assaulted him; Rivet’s neighbor
and another person broke into Rivet’s residence and stole his
personal property; and a police officer interviewed Rivet about
See Second Amend. Compl. (Dkt.

his neighbor’s wrongful conduct.
No. 9).

However, a pleading that merely provides a vague
understanding of the plaintiff’s claims does not meet the
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2).

As a threshold matter, Rivet has

not clearly identified the defendants.

Even if the Court assumes

that all persons mentioned in second amended complaint are
defendants, the pleading is nonetheless insufficient.

For the

most part, Rivet does not clearly identify what each defendant
did that caused him harm or violated his rights, including the
dates and places of the defendants’ alleged misconduct.
Rivet’s factual assertions concerning two matters arguably
rise to the level of well-pled factual allegations, but they do
not save this action for different reasons.

3

Rivet claims that on

August 28, 2018, a police officer who identified himself as
Timothy Roussell questioned Rivet about the assault by his
neighbor.

Rivet asked the officer about the “other Timothy

Roussell who works on the force.”

Id. at 2.

The officer

responded that “he was the only Tim Roussell on the police force
with this name and that he had been on the force since before the
beating in [December] 2015.”

Id.

Rivet thought there was

“something . . . up with this” because he had “known Tim Roussell
since 1968 in high school.”

Id.

He believed that “the chief of

the Lowell police [was] up to something by sending this man here
to interview [Rivet] about this incident.”

Id.

While the

factual assertions are arguably clear, the Court cannot
reasonably infer therefrom any wrongdoing.
claim of misconduct is not plausible.

In other words, any

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible
claim for relief,” and “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged–but it has not
‘show[n]’–‘that the pleader is entitled to relief’” (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (alteration in original)).
Rivet’s factual allegations of claims of assault and theft
by his neighbor are presumably sufficiently pled for purposes of
Rule 8(a)(2).

However, they arise under state law.

In the

absence of a separate claim arising under federal law or a state
law claim against defendants who do not reside in Massachusetts,
the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Rivet’s

4

state law claims.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367.
ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: 10/11/18

5