United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Casper United States District Judge
Janito Decarvalho (“Decarvalho”) has filed this
pro se lawsuit asserting claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for false imprisonment (Count I), loss of
property (Count II) and malicious prosecution (Count III) in
connection with his arrest and detention on May 14, 2012. D.
13. Defendants City of Brockton (“Brockton”), the
Brockton Police Department (“BPD”), John W.
Crowley (“Crowley”), Kenneth Legrice
(“Legrice”), Joseph Cummings
(“Cummings”) and “Unknown
Persons” have moved to dismiss the complaint. D.
16. Defendants Massachusetts State Police (“MSP”)
and Richard D. McKeon (“McKeon”),  former
Superintendent of MSP, have also filed a motion to dismiss.
D. 42. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ALLOWS the
motions to dismiss.
Standard of Review
Court will grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) if the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). When considering a motion to dismiss, the
Court is tasked with “separat[ing] the factual
allegations from the conclusory statements in order to
analyze whether the former, if taken as true, set forth a
‘plausible, not merely a conceivable, case for
relief.'” Juárez v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., 708 F.3d 269, 276 (1st Cir. 2013)
(quoting Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)).
In conducting this examination, the Court must not
“attempt to forecast a plaintiff's likelihood of
success on the merits, ” id., but instead
“give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable
inferences.” Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding
Corp., 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rogan
v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999)).
plaintiff is pro se, the Court must apply a liberal
reading to the complaint and hold pro se litigants
to a less stringent pleading standard than that applied to
lawyers. Kruskall v. Sallie Mae Serv., Inc., No.
15-cv-11780-DJC, 2016 WL 1056973, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 14,
2016) (citing Green v. Com. of Mass., 108 F.R.D.
217, 218 (D. Mass. 1985)). A pro se plaintiff,
however, must still comply with procedural and substantive
law and “dismissal remains appropriate . . . when the
complaint fails to even suggest an actionable claim.”
Overton v. Torruella, 183 F.Supp.2d 295, 303 (D.
instituted this action on June 30, 2017. D. 1. As part of the
initial screening process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2), the Court (Bowler, M.J.) ruled that the original
complaint was subject to dismissal but allowed Decarvalho
time to amend his complaint. D. 7 at 19-20; 9/28/17 ECF
Order. Upon the filing of Decarvalho's amended complaint
on November 15, 2017, D. 13, the Court allowed summonses to
issue as to the identified defendants in the amended
complaint and gave Decarvalho ninety days to complete
service, D. 14, which would have been February 13, 2018. D.
17 at 4 n. 1.
Brockton, BPD, Crowley, Cummings, Legrice (and “Unknown
Persons”) have now moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. D. 16. Defendants MSP and McKeon, in his
official capacity, have also moved to dismiss. D. 42. The
Court held a hearing on the motions on November 5, 2018 at
which Decarvalho failed to appear. D. 52. The Court took the
motions to dismiss under advisement on the papers that were
previously filed by the parties. Id.
following facts are drawn from Decarvalho's amended
complaint, D. 13, and accepted as true for the purposes of
considering the motions to dismiss.
14, 2012, law enforcement officers including members of the
BPD, MPS and Plymouth County Police Department executed a
warrant at Decarvalho's home in Brockton, Massachusetts.
D. 13 ¶ 37-38. At that time, officers arrested
Decarvalho and transported him to the Brockton Police
Department for booking. Id. ¶ 53. Following
booking, Decarvalho was escorted to Brockton District Court
for arraignment and thereafter to the Plymouth House of
Correction. Id. ¶ 55-56. Plaintiff was in
custody at the Plymouth House of Correction from May 14, 2012
to May 25, 2012. Id. ¶ 56. During his time in
custody, Decarvalho learned from a family member that his
home had been burglarized and his belongings stolen.
Id. ¶ 58. Decarvalho alleges that officers left
his home unsecured following his arrest. Id. ¶
15, 2015, Decarvalho began trial on the charges stemming from
his May 2012 arrest. Id. ¶ 59. On June 17,
2015, Decarvalho was acquitted of all charges. Id.