United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge
case involves claims by Sandra Lucien-Calixte
(“plaintiff” or “Lucien-Calixte”)
that defendant Police Officer Neal David (“Officer
David”) and defendant Town of Stoughton (“the
Town”) (collectively, “defendants”)
wrongfully caused her arrest and prosecution.
Court previously allowed defendants' Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings without prejudice and allowed plaintiff
leave to amend her complaint (Docket Entry No. 30). Plaintiff
filed her First Amended Complaint on August 22, 2018 (Docket
Entry No. 33).
First Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts violations
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and M.G.L. c. 12 §
11I, as well as a common law claim of malicious prosecution.
Pending before the court is defendants' Motion to
avers that she lived with and provided “round the clock
care” for her aunt, Marie Belfort-Bois
(“Belfort-Bois”). In January, 2013, Belfort-Bois
suffered a stroke and was admitted to Good Samaritan Hospital
(“the Hospital”). While at the Hospital, where
she was fed intravenously, Belfort-Bois suffered from several
medical conditions, including bed sores and low body
temperature. In March, 2013, Belfort-Bois was placed in
hospice care, but she survived and was returned to
plaintiff's care in June, 2013. In July, 2013, Carmel
Duversonne (“Ms. Duversonne”), a Home Health
aide, began periodically visiting Belfort-Bois to assist
plaintiff with her care.
a registered nurse and trained pulmonary therapist, handled
the majority of Belfort-Bois' care after June, 2013.
Belfort-Bois was housed in a makeshift hospital room set up
in the basement of plaintiff's home.
February 16, 2014, plaintiff summoned emergency medical help
for Belfort-Bois. A first responder found Belfort-Bois
dehydrated and with low oxygen saturation. She was readmitted
to the Hospital. After triaging and tending to Belfort-Bois,
Nurse Perdigao called the Stoughton Police Department to
report what she believed to be “troubling” health
concerns. Nurse Perdigao reported that Belfort-Bois was
dehydrated, had serious bed sores, low body temperature, a
soiled diaper and dirty catheter and feeding tubes. Nurse
Perdigao also submitted a written Elder Abuse Mandated
David responded to the call and began a police report that
ultimately served as the initial charging document. Plaintiff
contends that that report attributes the following statements
to Ms. Duversonne which Ms. Duversonne never made: 1) that
Belfort-Bois was receiving below average care, 2) that the
basement in which Belfort-Bois slept was “very cold,
” 3) that Belfort-Bois was sleeping in an unfinished
basement and 4) that Ms. Duversonne complained about
Belfort-Bois' condition to her supervisor and asked to be
taken off of her case. Plaintiff alleges that Ms.
Duversonne's grand jury testimony directly contradicts
February 21, 2014, Officer David applied for charges against
Lucien-Calixte for elder abuse and neglect based on his
police report. That same day, a magistrate issued a warrant
and Lucien-Calixte was arrested.
March 4, 2014, Officer David amended his report to include an
additional interview with Dr. Kesselman, Belfort- Bois'
treating physician. In his amended report, Officer David
attributed the following statement to Dr. Kesselman:
I asked Dr. Kesselman in his professional opinion if
[Belfort-Bois'] case was a case of neglect? Dr. Kesselman
stated [Belfort-Bois'] situation was definitely a case of
contends that Dr. Kesselman never expressed such an opinion
but instead suggested Belfort-Bois' conditions were due
to natural causes.
also alleges that Officer David concealed Belfort-Bois'
medical records, which established that the health problems
that concerned medical staff at the Hospital began before
plaintiff was charged with Belfort-Bois' care.
jury indicted Lucien-Calixte in June, 2014, and she was
charged and arraigned in Superior Court the following month.
After a trial in 2017, Lucien-Calixte was acquitted of all
seeks damages for her legal fees, emotional distress and loss
of income as a result of her besmirched reputation as a
nurse. She also seeks punitive damages and requests that this
Court enjoin Officer David from filing false reports and
order him to submit to further police training.
First Amended Complaint specifically alleges that 1)
defendants deprived her of clearly established and well
settled constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, 2) the Town maintained improper policies and
customs for its law enforcement officers in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 3) defendants violated the Massachusetts
Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12 § 11I and 4) Officer
David maliciously prosecuted plaintiff.
Motion to Dismiss
Standard of Review
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). In considering the merits of a motion to dismiss, the
Court may only look to the facts alleged in the pleadings,
documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference
in the complaint and matters of which judicial notice can be
taken. Nollet v. Justices of Trial Court of Mass.,
83 F.Supp.2d 204, 208 (D. Mass. 2000), aff'd,
228 F.3d 1127 (1st Cir. 2000).
the Court must accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor. Langadinos v. Am. Airlines,
Inc.,199 F.3d 68, 69 (1st Cir. 2000). If the facts in
the complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action, a