United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 31)
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE.
Simone, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for battery and violations of his
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Docket No. 1).
Trooper Andrew Monaco (“Trooper Monaco”) of the
New Hampshire State Police moves to dismiss the claims
against him for lack of jurisdiction. (Docket No. 31).
Because Plaintiff has not shown that the Trooper Monaco is
subject to personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts, the Court
grants the motion to dismiss.
following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint
(Docket No. 1) and assumed true for the purposes of this
5, 2016, the Worcester District Court issued a warrant for
Plaintiff's arrest after he failed to appear at a
probation hearing. (Docket No. 1 at 6). Six days later, as
Massachusetts police officers tried to arrest Plaintiff,
Plaintiff drove over the border into New Hampshire. (Docket
No. 1 at 7-8). The Massachusetts police officers coordinated
with New Hampshire police officers to continue pursuing
Plaintiff. (Docket No. 1 at 8). The pursuit ended when
Plaintiff stopped his vehicle on a residential dead-end
street in Nashua, New Hampshire. (Docket No. 1 at 8).
remained in his vehicle as officers from Massachusetts State
Police, New Hampshire State Police, Holden Police Department,
and Nashua Police Department surrounded him. (Docket No. 1 at
8). Trooper Andrew Monaco was among those present. (Docket
No. 1 at 8). Plaintiff complied with an officer's order
to exit the vehicle and get on the ground. (Docket No. 1 at
8-9). After his surrender, Trooper Andrew Monaco and
Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joseph Flynn began to
strike Plaintiff's body repeatedly. (Docket No. 1 at 10).
Plaintiff was eventually taken to a hospital in New Hampshire
to treat the injuries he sustained during this beating.
8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a § 1983 action against, among
others, Trooper Monaco. (Docket No. 1). Count I alleges that
Trooper Monaco struck Plaintiff in violation of his Fourth
and Fourteenth amendment rights. (Docket No. 1 at 16). Count
III alleges that Trooper Monaco battered Plaintiff. (Docket
No. 1 at 18). Trooper Monaco moved to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction on September 16, 2019. (Docket No. 31).
plaintiff bears “the burden of establishing that
jurisdiction over the defendant lies in the forum
state.” Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose
Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28, 34 (1st Cir. 2016). When a
defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), “the
court may proceed to adjudication by one or another among
several different methods.” Boit v. Gar-Tec
Prod., Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 674 (1st Cir. 1992). The most
commonly used standard, applicable here, is the prima facie
standard. Id. at 675. Under the prima facie
standard, a court considers “whether the plaintiff has
proffered evidence that, if credited, is enough to support
findings of all facts essential to personal
jurisdiction.” Id. A plaintiff
“ordinarily cannot rest upon the pleadings, but is
obliged to adduce evidence of specific facts”
supporting jurisdiction. Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock
& Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1st Cir. 1995).
establish personal jurisdiction over Trooper Monaco,
Plaintiff “must meet the requirements of both the
Massachusetts long-arm statute and the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” See A Corp. v. All Am.
Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2016).
“The jurisdictional requirements imposed by the
Massachusetts long-arm statute are quite similar to, though
not completely congruent with, the jurisdictional
requirements imposed by the Due Process Clause.”
Baskin-Robbins, 825 F.3d at 34. In this case, the
differences between the requirements of the Massachusetts
long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause are not relevant.
are two types of personal jurisdiction available: general
jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. Neither applies here.
jurisdiction exists when the litigation is not directly
founded on the defendant's forum-based contacts, but the
defendant has nevertheless engaged in continuous and
systematic activity, unrelated to the suit, in the forum
state.” United Elec. Workers v. 163 Pleasant St.
Corp., 960 F.2d 1080, 1088 (1st Cir. 1992). To assert
general jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must