Hayward v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al

Filing 41

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated and based on the extensive and considered analysis set forth in Judge Robertsons R&R, this court will adopt her recommendation, allow Defendants motions to di smiss all counts, (Dkt. Nos. 7 , 13 ), and deny all Plaintiffs motions, (Dkt. Nos. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 29 ). To the extent Plaintiff has objected to the R&R, his objections are either unrelated to specific findings in the R&R, or m erely inflammatory. the court hereby ADOPTS the 35 R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is hereby GRANTED as to all counts and Plaintiffs various motions DENIED. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERT J. HAYWARD,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

*
*

COMMONWEALTH OF

*

MASSACHUSETTS, CITY OF WEST

*

SPRINGFIELD, RONALD P.

*

CAMPURCIANI, MARK SYPEK, AND

*

DANIELLE (?),1

No. 16-30046-MGM

*
*

Defendants.

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
AND PLAINTIFF’S SEVEN MOTIONS
(Dkt. Nos. 7, 13, 20–25, 29, 35)
February 28, 2014
MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.
Robert J. Hayward (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, brings the present action against the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the City of West Springfield, Massachusetts; Ronald P.
Campurciani, Chief of Police for the City of West Springfield; Mark Sypek, Acting Chief of Police

At the time Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was apparently unsure as to the name of this defendant, (see Compl. at 5–6
(stating defendant in question refused to identify herself or give her name to Plaintiff)), who is now believed to be
Danielle Eickelberg. (See Municipal Defs. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Their Mot. to Dismiss the Compl. at 1.)
1

for the City of West Springfield; and an individual Plaintiff believes to be Danielle Eickelberg, a
firearms officer for the City of West Springfield. (The court will refer to all defendants, collectively,
as “Defendants,” and defendants Campurciani, Sypek, and Eickelberg as, collectively, “the municipal
defendants.”) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Massachusetts, West Springfield, and the municipal
defendants violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights in denying him a Class A license to
carry (“LTC”) a firearm.
Desiring to become a gunsmith, Plaintiff applied for the requisite Class A LTC on
November 23, 2015 at the West Springfield Police Department. (Compl. at 5.) On January 11, 2016,
Plaintiff received a letter informing him that his application had been denied. (Id.) Specifically,
Plaintiff had been deemed “unsuitable” after incorrectly answering “no” to question four, (id.),
which requires an applicant indicate whether he has “ever been arrested or appeared in court as a
defendant for any criminal offense.”2 (Id., Ex. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff tried multiple times to contact
members of the West Springfield Police Department in an attempt to have the denial reversed, and
was unsuccessful. (See Compl. at 5–6.) Ultimately, Plaintiff filed the present action. His complaint
sets forth the following sixteen counts: conspiracy by Defendants to violate Plaintiff’s Second
Amendment right to bear arms and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal
protection in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (Counts 1–5); conspiracy by Defendants to
commit an act of extortion in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (Counts 6–10); treason by the
municipal defendants in violation of Article VI, clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution
(Counts 11–13); and breach of trust by municipal defendants as public officials (Counts 14–16.)3 (See
id. at 10–18 (enumerating claims). Defendants have moved to dismiss all counts pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (See generally Dkt. Nos. 7, 13.)

According to Plaintiff, the question was answered incorrectly due to dyslexia. (Compl. at 5.)
The legal basis for Plaintiff’s public-trust claims appears to be Jersey City v. Hague, 115 A.2d 8 (1955). (See Compl. at 16–
18.)
2
3

2

Plaintiff has also filed the following seven motions:4 Motion to Suspend the British Crown
Copyright (Dkt. No. 20), Motion to Acknowledge the Constitution of the United States of America
is the Supreme Law of the Land (Dkt. No. 21), Motion to Acknowledge the Bar Association is an
Unlawful Corporate Monopoly (Dkt. No. 22), Motion to Enter a Guilty Verdict Against All
Defendants (Dkt. No. 23), Motion to Acknowledge the Municipal Defendants are Individuals of
Unsound Mind and Incompetent (Dkt. No. 24), Motion to Acknowledge All State, County, and
Municipal Magistrate and Officers of Government Have Voluntarily Waived Their Right to Remain
Silent and/or Refuse to Answer Questions (Dkt. No. 25), and Motion to Issue a Restraining Order
Against the Commonwealth to Force Plaintiff to Serve Jury Duty (Dkt. No. 26). The
Commonwealth requests this court deny Plaintiff’s motions as “frivolous, vexatious, and harassing.”
(Dkt. No. 26, Def. Commonwealth of Mass. Opp. to Hayward’s Mots. at 7.)
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson for a report and
recommendation. (See Dkt. Nos. 16, 34.) Judge Robertson released her Report and
Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 35 (“R&R”)), on November 14, 2016, recommending this court
dismiss all claims and deny all motions. (See generally R&R.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the
R&R, (Dkt. No. 38), to which the municipal defendants and City of West Springfield responded.
(Dkt No. 39.)5
Based on the extensive and considered analysis set forth in Judge Robertson’s R&R, this
court will adopt her recommendation, allow Defendants’ motions to dismiss all counts, (Dkt. Nos.
7, 13), and deny all Plaintiff’s motions, (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29). To the extent Plaintiff
has objected to the R&R, his objections are either unrelated to specific findings in the R&R, or
merely inflammatory.

4
5

Many of Plaintiff’s motions have exceedingly long titles; the court simplifies these titles in the interest of brevity.
Plaintiff also filed a reply to these defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. (See Dkt. No. 40.)

3

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is hereby GRANTED as to all counts and
Plaintiff’s various motions DENIED.
It is So Ordered.

_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge

4