Runyon v. Manchester Police Department

Filing 22

ORDER granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of this order re: 1 complaint and addenda to the complaint (doc. nos. 8-18). ( Amended Pleadings due by 2/19/2013.) So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(jab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Fred Runyon
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-282-SM

Manchester Police Department

O R D E R
Before the court is the initial complaint (doc. no. 1) and
addenda to the complaint (doc. nos. 8-18), hereinafter construed
to be the complaint in this action for all purposes, filed by
Fred Runyon, asserting violations of his federal constitutional
rights by the defendants.1

Because Runyon is incarcerated and

proceeding pro se,2 the matter is before the court for
preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and United
States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule
(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2).

1

Runyon names the following defendants in the addenda to his
complaint: the Manchester Police Department, and its Chief,
David Mara; Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas; Hillsborough County
Sheriff James Hardy; the Hillsborough County Attorney’s Office;
and the Office of the New Hampshire Public Defender. See Doc.
Nos. 8-18.
2

Runyon has asserted that this is a class action, but, as a
pro se party, he cannot file a class action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1654; United States District Court District of New Hampshire
Local Rule 83.2(d).

Background
Runyon claims that Manchester Police Department (“MPD”)
officers arrested him on an unspecified date in 2011, shocked
him with a stun gun multiple times, and hit and kicked him in
the ribs, chest, and head.

Runyon states that he cannot recall

the date of the incident, which he characterizes as “police
brutality,” because he was shocked with a stun gun so many
times.
Runyon further asserts that there was “no charge
whatsoever” pending against him, and that the officers “trumped
up a charge” for “no reason.”

Runyon further asserts that the

officers failed to read him his Miranda rights, and that after
he was formally charged, MPD officers caused him to be convicted
on the false charge.

Runyon also alleges that the New Hampshire

Public Defender’s Office failed to prevent the state from
obtaining an “illegal[] conviction,” which resulted in Runyon’s
“false imprisonment.”
Runyon further asserts that the MPD “disposed of [his]
driver’s license illegally” after his arrest, and allowed a
“prostitute” to drive his new car and use his social security
number and credit cards to purchase items in Runyon’s name,
without his authorization, thus harming his credit.
2

Upon initially reviewing the complaint (doc. nos. 1 and 818), and liberally construing it in light of Runyon’s pro se
status, the court finds that Runyon has asserted the following
claims:
1.
Unnamed MPD officers arresting Runyon in 2011
violated Runyon’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, by
using unreasonable force, in that they shocked him with
stun guns repeatedly, and kicked and struck him multiple
times.
2.
Unnamed MPD officers arresting Runyon in 2011
violated Runyon’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Equal Protection Clause.
3.
Defendants violated Runyon’s rights under the
Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
4.
Defendants violated Runyon’s rights by causing
him to be subjected to a false arrest, malicious
prosecution, and false imprisonment.
5.
The MPD is liable under state law for torts
relating to a third party’s use of Runyon’s car, credit
cards, and social security card, which caused items to be
purchased in Runyon’s name without his authorization, and
which damaged Runyon’s credit rating.
6.
The defendant supervisors and municipalities are
liable to Runyon for the unconstitutional acts of their
subordinates and employees.
Discussion
Pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2)(B), this court has discretion to
grant an inmate leave to file an amended complaint.
should be granted liberally, as justice requires.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

3

Such leave
See Fed. R.

The court finds, at this time, that the allegations of
excessive force during arrest in Claim 1, as numbered above,
must be amended before this case may proceed.

The complaint

lacks details regarding the circumstances relating to the
alleged assault, and there are no officers named as responsible
parties.

Before the court can direct service of this claim,

Runyon must amend the complaint to cure those deficiencies.
Accordingly, this court grants Runyon fourteen days in which to
file an amended complaint, stating additional facts supporting
his claim that the presently unnamed MPD officers in 2011
repeatedly shocked, kicked, and struck him, incident to an
arrest, and to name individual defendants to this claim,
describing what each defendant did or failed to do to violate
Runyon’s rights.
Conclusion
The court grants Runyon leave to file an amended complaint,
within fourteen days of the date of this order, specifying, with
respect to an incident of “police brutality” on the date of
Runyon’s arrest by Manchester police officers in 2011:
1.

The names of the officers responsible;

2.

The conduct of each officer on that date; and

4

3.
All of the facts and circumstances that Runyon
believes show that each officer’s use of force against
him on those dates was excessive.
After receipt of an amended complaint, or the expiration of
fourteen days if Runyon fails to file an amended complaint, the
court will complete preliminary review of all of the claims
asserted in this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and LR
4.3(d)(2).
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
February 4, 2013
cc:

Fred Runyon, pro se

LBM:nmd

5