Qualls v. Roache

D. Massachusetts

Qualls v. Roache

DecidedMarch 28, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-10435

StatusUnknown

This text of Qualls v. Roache (Qualls v. Roache) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Qualls v. Roache, (D. Mass. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-10435-GAO

RONNIE QUALLS, Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS (“MICKEY”) ROACHE, DANIEL KEELER, KENNETH TAYLOR, DENNIS HARRIS, TIMOTHY MURRAY, DAVID PEREZ, JOHN HARDEN, CLIFTON HAYNES, and THE CITY OF BOSTON, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER March 28, 2024

O’TOOLE, D.J. Plaintiff Ronnie Qualls (“Qualls”) brings this action for damages against individual defendants Detective Daniel Keeler and Officer Clifton Haynes1 for a violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I) and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 12 § 11I (Count IV). Qualls also alleges defendants conspired together to deprive him of his constitutional rights (Count II). The defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Taking all inferences in Qualls’ favor, Counts I and IV are sufficient at this early stage of the litigation. Whether Qualls can prove his allegations is a matter to be answered after the parties have had an opportunity to develop the factual record. However, Qualls’ Count II is not sufficient. “In an effort to control frivolous conspiracy suits under [Section] 1983, federal courts have come to insist that the complaint state with

1 Qualls brought this suit against other individual Boston Police Department officers who have not appeared in the case. Those individuals are Francis “Mickey” Roache, Kenneth Taylor, Dennis Harris, Timothy Murray, David Perez and John Harden. The docket does not reflect any service of process as to these named defendants. specificity the facts that, in the plaintiff’s mind, show the existence and scope of the alleged conspiracy.” Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1977). Qualls provides no facts that allege a conspiracy between defendants Detective Keeler and Officer Haynes. Based on the foregoing, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 14) is DENIED as to Counts I and IV and GRANTED as to Count II.

It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-10435-GAO

RONNIE QUALLS, Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS (“MICKEY”) ROACHE, DANIEL KEELER, KENNETH TAYLOR, DENNIS HARRIS, TIMOTHY MURRAY, DAVID PEREZ, JOHN HARDEN, CLIFTON HAYNES, and THE CITY OF BOSTON, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER March 28, 2024

O’TOOLE, D.J. Plaintiff Ronnie Qualls (“Qualls”) brings this action for damages against individual defendants Detective Daniel Keeler and Officer Clifton Haynes1 for a violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I) and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 12 § 11I (Count IV). Qualls also alleges defendants conspired together to deprive him of his constitutional rights (Count II). The defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Taking all inferences in Qualls’ favor, Counts I and IV are sufficient at this early stage of the litigation. Whether Qualls can prove his allegations is a matter to be answered after the parties have had an opportunity to develop the factual record. However, Qualls’ Count II is not sufficient. “In an effort to control frivolous conspiracy suits under [Section] 1983, federal courts have come to insist that the complaint state with

1 Qualls brought this suit against other individual Boston Police Department officers who have not appeared in the case. Those individuals are Francis “Mickey” Roache, Kenneth Taylor, Dennis Harris, Timothy Murray, David Perez and John Harden. The docket does not reflect any service of process as to these named defendants. specificity the facts that, in the plaintiff’s mind, show the existence and scope of the alleged conspiracy.” Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1977). Qualls provides no facts that allege a conspiracy between defendants Detective Keeler and Officer Haynes. Based on the foregoing, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 14) is DENIED as to Counts I and IV and GRANTED as to Count II.

It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Qualls v. Roache, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qualls-v-roache-mad-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack