Mendonca v. City of Providence et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Providence Police Department. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 3/4/13. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, through its
)
Finance Director, MICHAEL PEARIS; )
PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
)
CHIEF DEAN ESSERMAN;
)
ROBERT DECARLO; FRANK NEWTON;
)
EVERETT CARVALHO;
)
MARGARET SCHLAGETER;
)
MATTHEW MULLIGAN;
)
ROBERT MALAVAGNO;
)
PAUL A. RENZI; CLIFFORD JONES;
)
JAMES GRENNAN; JANE DOE OFFICER;
)
JOHN DOE OFFICER;
)
RHODE ISLAND SCHOOL OF DESIGN,
)
through its President, John Maeda; )
JUSTIN WALL; WILLIAM LAPIERRE; and )
JANE DOE OFFICER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
LUIS MENDONCA,

C.A. No. 12-850 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
This
Mendonca,

case
during

arises
which

out

of

he

was

officer, leaving him in a coma.

the

2009

struck

by

arrest
a

of

Plaintiff

Providence

police

Mendonca filed a thirteen count

complaint against the above-listed Defendants, including claims
of

Malicious

Prosecution

and

False

Imprisonment

Providence Police Department (the “PPD”).

against

(ECF No. 1-1.)

the
The

PPD filed a Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
10.)

(ECF No.

This motion is unopposed, and it is GRANTED.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must “accept

the well-pleaded facts as true, viewing factual allegations in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

Rederford v. US

Airways, Inc., 589 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2009).

However, “[t]o

survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that

is

plausible

plausibility
allows

the

on

when
court

the
to

its

face.’

plaintiff
draw

the

.

.

pleads

.

A

claim

factual

reasonable

has

content

inference

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

facial

that

that
the

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007)).
No valid claim may be asserted against the PPD because it
is not a legal entity that is subject to suit.

The PPD is a

subdivision of the Department of Public Safety, See Providence,
R.I.,

Home

departments,

Rule
it

Charter
is

§

subject

Providence city council.

1001(a)(1980),
to

the

and,

legislative

like

all

power

of

city
the

Ret. Bd. of the Emp.’s Ret. Sys. of

the City of Providence v. City Council of Providence, 660 A.2d
721, 727-28 (R.I. 1995) (holding that the Providence retirement
board lost its status as an independent corporate entity when it
2

was made a “city board” in the Home Rule Charter and subjected
to the “legislative power of the city council”).

Therefore, the

PPD may not be named in a lawsuit as an entity separate from the
City of Providence.

See Bibby v. Petrucci, C.A. No. 07-463-S,

2009 WL 4639101, at *4 n.3 (D.R.I. Dec. 7, 2009) (dismissal of
all claims against the PPD was proper because “a suit against a
municipal police department . . . is deemed to be a suit against
the municipality itself” (quoting Murphy v. Town of Natick, 516
F. Supp. 2d 153, 158-59 (D. Mass. 2007))).

Because the PPD

cannot be sued in its own name, all claims against the PPD are
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: March 4, 2013

3