United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Marlon Holmes, Plaintiff, Pro se, Bridgewater, MA.
For T. Meleady, D. Quinn, S. Marangoudakis, T. O'Shea, D. William, T. Nehmer, D. West, A. Casillas, Richard Tosoni, M. O'Hallaran, Defendants: John T. Liebel, LEAD ATTORNEY, City of Springfield, Springfield, MA; Kevin B. Coyle, LEAD ATTORNEY, Springfield, MA.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Marlon Holmes (" Holmes" ) brought suit several years ago against police officers of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts pursuant to the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged constitutional violations. Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to reopen the case closed in 2010 and defendants' consolidated opposition and motion to dismiss.
I. Factual Background
The facts and procedural history of this case were described in detail in the Court's August, 2010, memorandum and order (Docket No. 41) and need not be repeated at length. In short, this dispute arises out of plaintiff's arrest nearly 15 years ago for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. In December, 1997, Holmes pled guilty and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. His conviction was, however, overturned. In 2005, Holmes moved to withdraw his guilty plea based upon an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his counsel had failed to inform him of his right to move to suppress evidence seized during his arrest and had virtually forced him to plead guilty. After being permitted to withdraw his guilty plea, Holmes filed a motion for a new trial and a motion to suppress the evidence. On April 20, 2007, Holmes's motion to suppress was allowed and the criminal indictment was dismissed.
II. Procedural History
Holmes filed his § 1983 complaint on July 16, 2009. In January, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss which Holmes opposed the following month. In April, 2010, Holmes filed a proposed amended complaint without seeking leave of court. Defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In response, Holmes filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint with the previously-submitted amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and because the amended
complaint was very similar to the original, i.e. added one new party and minor factual allegations, construed defendants original motion to dismiss as applying to the amended complaint. On August 5, 2010, the Court dismissed with prejudice all of plaintiff's claims with the exception of his claim for malicious prosecution which it denied without prejudice. The Court permitted Holmes to " file an amended claim related thereto within 45 days of this order."
On August 18, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time for 30 days to retain counsel. On September 29, 2010, with his motion for an extension still pending, plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a second amended complaint. On October 7, 2010, the Court inadvertently denied plaintiff's motion for an extension on the mistaken grounds that the case had already been closed.
On November 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case. Defendants filed a consolidated pleading opposing that motion and moving to dismiss the second amended ...