Douglas v. Springfield et al

Filing 103

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered Adopting 94 Report and Recommendations regarding 69 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. "...For the foregoing reasons, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 94.) Based upon this, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 69) is hereby ALLOWED as to the Monell claim, based upon failure to train (as to which there has been no objection), and DENIED as t o the claim based upon failure to adequately supervise and discipline. The clerk will issue the standard order for a final pretrial conference and establish a date for counsel to appear before the court to set a timeline for trial." See Memorandum and Order for details. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation) (Healy, Bethaney)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUSTIN DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

C.A. No. 14-30210-MAP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Dkt. Nos. 69 & 94)
January 12, 2017
PONSOR, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff has brought this action against eight law
enforcement officers and the City of Springfield pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The City of Springfield moved for summary

judgment on Count II, in which Plaintiff seeks damages under
a theory of municipal liability. (Dkt. No. 69.)
v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

See Monell
The motion

was referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson for
a Report and Recommendation.
On October 14, 2016, Judge Robertson issued her Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 94), to the effect that the
motion should be denied as to the Monell claim based upon a
failure adequately to supervise and discipline certain

police officers and allowed as to the claim based upon a
failure to train.

Defendant has filed an objection to the

Report and Recommendation in accordance with the timeline
established by Judge Robertson.

For the reasons set forth

below, the court is not persuaded by the objection.

Upon de

novo review, the court will therefore adopt the Report and
Recommendation, deny the motion for summary judgment, in
part, and set the case for a final pretrial conference.1
Judge Robertson’s Report sets forth the background of
this case and the underlying facts in scrupulous detail.

No

significant objection has been filed as to the facts that
must be presumed at this stage, or to the basic analytical
framework.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation is

attached to this Memorandum for reference.
The heart of Defendant’s objection is straightforward.
The record, the argument goes, is simply insufficient to
persuade a reasonable jury (1) that the City of Springfield
had a custom, policy, or practice of failing to investigate,
discipline, and supervise its officers; (2) that this
custom, policy, or practice demonstrated deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals
with whom the officers interacted; and (3) that this custom,

1 In a separate ruling, the court has allowed Defendant’s
Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. No. 70).
2

policy, or practice was the direct cause of the
constitutional violation suffered by Plaintiff here.

In

particular, Defendant emphasizes its substantial efforts at
improving review and oversight of its police officers.

It

also points out that Plaintiff himself in this case failed
to invoke available processes for protesting alleged police
misconduct.
These arguments, and others, may well ultimately
persuade a jury that Plaintiff’s claims against the City of
Springfield lack support.

However, as the Report and

Recommendation summarizes in detail, the record regarding
some of the officers who are Defendants in this case, and
the record of the City of Springfield with regard to the
supervision and discipline of its officers, is sufficient to
clear the Rule 56 threshold.
In reaching this conclusion, the court has found
particularly helpful the excellent decision by U.S. District
Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, in the case of Cox v.
Murphy, Civ. No. 12-11817, 2016 WL 4009978 (D. Mass. Feb.
12, 2016).

Cox involved a Monell claim against the City of

Boston, arising (as here) from an incident of alleged
excessive force by police officers.
In Cox, Judge Saylor noted the considerable evidence of
incidents of excessive force by particular defendants.
3

He

observed that “[i]t has been well-documented for decades
that a small percentage of police officers is responsible
for a large percentage of citizen complaints of abuse.”
at *9.

Id.

He concluded as follows:

There is no clear standard or precise metric by
which the Court can measure whether the claim has
reached the appropriate threshold to survive
summary judgment. The courts should not lightly
infer a municipal policy or practice from a few
scattered claims, lest every claim of excessive
force engender a Monell claim. But neither should
the courts blind themselves to reality. As with
many issues, the question is to a considerable
extent one of degree: while a single accusation of
excessive force is not enough, at some point, as
the accusations and claims begin to pile up, a
critical mass may be reached requiring an
affirmative response from the supervisors. Put
simply, a very large amount of smoke could
reasonably compel the inference that there must be
at least a small amount of fire.
Id. at *10 (internal citations omitted).
As with Cox, this is such a case.

It is important to

underline that in making this ruling, the court is not
finding that any of the individual officers used excessive
force on Plaintiff, or that the City of Springfield was
deliberately indifferent to that possibility.

This court is

deciding simply that the quantum of evidence offered by
Plaintiff is sufficient as a matter of law to permit
Plaintiff to submit his claim against the City of
Springfield to a jury for resolution.
For the foregoing reasons, the court, upon de novo
4

review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt.
No. 94.)

Based upon this, Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt. No. 69) is hereby ALLOWED as to the Monell
claim, based upon failure to train (as to which there has
been no objection), and DENIED as to the claim based upon
failure to adequately supervise and discipline.
The clerk will issue the standard order for a final
pretrial conference and establish a date for counsel to
appear before the court to set a timeline for trial.
It is So Ordered.
/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
U. S. District Judge

5