Santiago v. Adamen

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: March 11, 2009
• Docket: CUMcv-08-457
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss

PEDRO E. SANTIAGO i08Q ~'Ii\R i I P J: I W CIVIL ACTION ~OCKEWO. C:/57 Plaintiff v. ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS PETER ADAMEN LOU WOOD ANDREW STILSON DARREL MOTICE CARL SIMPSON KRAIGMASON JACK WADE, and MIKE JONES Defendants

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint pursuant to M.R.

Civ. P. 15(a).1 Also before the Court are Defendants Kraig Mason and Lou Wood's

Motions to Dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion

to Dismiss/Withdraw the Complaint against Defendant Darrel Motice and Defendant

Andrew Stilson2 pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(2).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 21, 2008} Plaintiff Pedro Santiago (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or

"Santiago") filed a Complaint against eight individual defendants. Only Defendants

Andrew Stilson, Darrel Motice, and Carl Simpson filed Answers to the Complaint.

From the record it appears that Defendant Peter Adamen was served with process, but

he has not yet filed an Answer. Jack Wade and Mike Jones were not served with

process.

I On November 20,2008, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Supplement and Clarity the Complaint." Subsequently, on January 12,2009, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Amend the Complaint." These two motions present the same request for relief and therefore are considered together. 2 Plaintiff incorrectly identifies Defendant Stilson as Defendant "Stinson" in his Rule 41 (a)(2) motion. 3 The Complaint states that it was docketed on "2009-Aug-21." This is a typographical error and it should read "2008-Aug-21." FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Maine State Prison and is serving a

sentence for the murder of Josh Dyer ("Dyer"). This case arises out of the loss of

surveillance images from two security cameras that allegedly captured the altercation

between Santiago and Dyer.

The following individuals are named defendants. Defendant Peter Adamen was

an employee of the Old Nissen Bakery through A&M Partners. Defendant Lou Wood is

the proprietor of A&M Partners and was the supervisor of Peter Adamen. Defendant

Andrew Stilson was an employee of Pine Tree Communications. Defendant Darrel

Motice was the proprietor of Pine Tree Communications. Defendant Carl Simpson is

and was the Director of Operations and Finance at a business known as the Root Cellar.

Defendant Kraig Mason was an employee of Advanced Technologies.

On and after November 8, 2003, police officers conducted an investigation into

the death of Dyer. Earlier this day there was an "incident" between Santiago and Dyer.

The investigating officer contacted a number of the named defendants in an effort to

obtain the surveillance images of the incident from the cameras located on two nearby

buildings. The first camera was located on the Nissen building and the second camera

was located on the Root Cellar building. Defendant Wood was able to pull up the

images from the Nissen building security camera. After this, Defendant Stilson saved

the images to a separate hard drive and he later provided the video images to the

police. Subsequently, the police were unable to view theses images.

As for the camera attached to the Root O~llar, Defendant Carl Simpson

("Simpson") copied "several clips" of the "incident" onto a disk and provided this disk

to the police. They later contacted Simpson for additional copies, but he was unable to

provide them due to a computer malfunction. At this time, Defendant Kraig Mason of

2 Advanced Technology was contacted to "troubleshoot" the disks given the police.

Defendant Mason was unable to recover the images. Mason then referred the police to

Integral Strategic Technologies.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Amend

In the interests of finality and judicial economy, the court should rule on a

motion to amend before the court considers a dispositive motion, such as a motion to

dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Sherbert v. Remmel, 2006 ME 116,

A.2d 622,624; Kelly v. Michaud's Ins. Agency, 651 A.2d 345,346 (Me. 1994). A "party

may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served." M.R. Civ. P. 15(a).4 "Otherwise a party may amend the

party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." Id.

The court shall freely grant a motion to amend "when justice so requires." M.R.

Civ. P. 15(a). This rule should be "liberally applied to achieve the purpose set forth in

Rule 1: the 'just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'" Bangor Motor

Co. v. Chapman, 452 A.2d 389,392 (Me. 1982). The Court may deny a motion to amend

for a number of reasons. For instance, "the court may deny a motion to amend if it is

untimely filed or filed for delay." Sherbert, 2006 ME 116, «JI 8, 908 A.2d at 624. Likewise,

"[a] court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a motion for leave to amend when

4 Plaintiffs may amend pleadings as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. M.R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Law Court has yet to rule on the question of whether a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a "responsive pleading" under M.R. Civ. P. 15(a). Jones v. Suhre, 345 A.2d 515,517 n. 4 (Me. 1975). A motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" under the F.R. Civ. P. 15(a). See e.g., Leonard v. Parry, 219 F.3d 25, 30-31 (I st Cir. 2007). It may be then that "a plaintiff whose attention is called to a defect in his complaint by the filing of such a motion has a right to amend as of course." I Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 15.2 at 302 (2d ed. 1970). The Court does not reach the issue of whether a motion to dismiss is a responsive pleading because the Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court limits its decision to the pleadings and filings before it.

3 the moving party fails to show how it could cure the complaint ...." Id. (alteration in

original).

In the instant case, Plaintiff's written reason for his motion to amend is that he "is

a layman at law and has just recently met a former member of the National Lawyer [sic]

Guild who has agreed to assist him." Plaintiff's single-page motion does not comply

with M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(3). Moreover, Plaintiff did not indicate in his motion how his

amendment to the Complaint would cure any defects. Nor did Plaintiff present the

Court with any such information at the motion hearing held on March 9, 2009.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings pursuant to

M.R. Civ. P. 15(a).

II. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants Mason and Wood present the Court with two motions to dismiss

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Both contend that neither Mason nor Wood owed a

dUty to the Plaintiff, and even if they did owe a dUty, there are no factual allegations

contained in the Complaint that demonstrate how these defendants breached their

duty. Specifically, these defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to allege that Mason or

Wood misplaced or destroyed any evidence.

Plaintiff states in his Complaint that the "defendants owe[d] the Plaintiff a duty

of care not to misplace or destroy evidence once they had knowledge that the video

footage was needed for evidence." Pl.'s CompI.

"Defendants breached their duty by destroying the evidence, either intentionally or by

negligence." Pl.'s Compl. 149. This alleged breach of duty "caused the plaintiff injury

by denying him exculpatory evidence that he would have presented at his trial. He did

4 not have this potentially exculpatory evidence and was found guilty of murder." PI.'s

CompI. «JI 50. 5

A. Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the

complaint and, on such a challenge, 'the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as

admitted.'" Shaw v. Southern Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quoting

McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me.1994)). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this Court

examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it

sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief

pursuant to some legal theory." Id. A dismissal under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) will be granted

only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of

facts that he might prove in support of his claim." Id. (quoting Hall v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 498

A.2d 260,266 (Me. 1985)). "The legal sufficiency of a complaint challenged pursuant to M.R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is a question of law." Bean v. Cummings, 2008 ME 18, «JI 7, 2008 ME 18, 939 A.2d

676, 679 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).6

Even when Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant Mason or Defendant Wood

is viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintift it lacks the necessary elements of a cause

5 In his opposition, Plaintiff mistakenly relies on the doctrine of contributory negligence as a basis for his claim. The doctrine of contributory negligence is a doctrine raised by a defendant that works to decrease any award of damages to the plaintiff by accounting for a plaintiffs own negligence. 14 M.R.S. § 156 (2008). 6 The Plaintiff cites Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) for the proposition that the Court should apply a Jesser standard in viewing his pleadings than those drafted by a lawyer. The U.S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed the principle that the courts should liberally construe filings by pro se inmates, Erickson v. Pardus. 551 U.S. 89 (2007), but it has "never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel." McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Add itionally, the Law Court has reiterated numerous times that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as those litigants who are represented by counsel. See e.g., Dyer Goodall and Federle v. Proctor, 2007 ME 145, ~ 18,935 A.2d 1123,1127. These standards include compliance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. /d. The Court does note, however, that the standard of review governing a motion to dismiss provides plaintiffs, pro se or otherwise, with the benefit of all reasonab Ie inferences that can be drawn from the factual assertions set forth in the Complaint. This standard alone ensures that the Plaintiff will receive a fair and meaningful consideration of his case, regardless of his pro se status.

5 of action or factual allegations that would entitle Plaintiff to relief pursuant to some

legal theory.

Plaintiff's Complaint could possibly be read as alleging the tort of "spoliation of

evidence." However, the Law Court has not recognized the tort of "spoliation of

evidence." Gagne v. D. E. Jansen, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D. Me. 2003) (holding that

leave to amend the pleadings to include a tort of spoliation of the evidence would have

been futile because the Law Court has never recognized that tort.). Therefore, the Court

does not consider the allegations in the context of a "spoliation of evidence" claim.

The only other possible legal theory of Plaintiff's Complaint is negligence.

Negligence requires a plaintiff to establish four elements: duty, breach, causation, and

damages. Mastriano v. Blyer, 2001 ME 134, «n 11, 779 A.2d 951,954. "The existence of a

duty of care is a question of law." Reid v. Town ofMt. Vernon, 2007 ME 125, «n 14, 932

A.2d 539, 544. A motion to dismiss for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted is entirely appropriate if the court holds that a defendant did not owe a duty

of care to a plaintiff. See Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y, Inc., 1999 ME 144, «n

8, 738 A.2d 839, 843.

Duty is not a question of whether a defendant owes a general duty, but the

question is "whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the

particular plaintiff" Searles v. Trustees of St. Joseph's College, 1997 ME 128, «n 5,695 A.2d

1206, 1209 (emphasis added). The Court may consider many factors in determining

whether a duty exists, "including the hand of history, our ideals of morals and justice,

the convenience of administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss

should fall." Gafner v. Down E. Community Hosp., 1999 ME 130, 33, 735 A.2d 969,976-77

(internal quotation omitted).

6 B. Defendant Mason

Plaintiff's Complaint merely asserts that Defendant Mason "met with the

Detective after several attempts to troubleshoot the disk." PI.'s CompI.

time, Defendant Mason "was not able to recover any data, and referred the Detective to

Integral Strategic Technologies, Inc. (1ST)." Pl.'s CompI.

several conversations that Mason had with the police and with 1ST, the Complaint does

not allege any other acts or omissions by Defendant Mason. The Complaint does not set

forth any facts that establish a relationship between Mason and Santiago on the day of

the incident or afterwards.

The Court accepts the factual allegations contained in the Complaint as true and

the Court gives the Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. The Court can find

no rule of law that would oblige a citizen who cooperates with the police in a murder

investigation to owe a duty of care to an unknown criminal suspece Moreover, the

Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege a breach of any alleged duty by Defendant Mason.

Defendant Mason first encountered the disk only after the surveillance images were

already lost or destroyed. Absent an allegation of some sort of misconduct by

Defendant Mason, Plaintiff has not alleged the necessary element of breach of duty for

his negligence claim.

For the foregoing reasons, it is beyond doubt that there is no legal theory upon

which the Plaintiff can recover against Defendant Mason. Therefore, the Court grants

Defendant Mason's motion to dismiss.

7 The law generally does not impose a duty on actors to act for the benefit of others. Watchtower Bible, 1999 ME 144, ~ 12,738 A.2d at 844. There are also no factual assertions or allegations that Mason and Santiago, or Wood and Santiago for that matter, had a "special relationship" such that the exception to this general rule could apply. DeCambra v. Carson, 2008 ME 127, ~ 12,953 A.2d 1163, 1165.

7 C. Defendant Wood

The only allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint that implicate Defendant Wood are

that one of his employees "contacted his boss, Lou Woods [sic], for further assistance in

attempting to view the footage." PI.'s CompI.

images, but he called in Defendant Andrew Stilson for "some consultation and further

assistance." PI.'s CompI.

the images for the police. The Complaint does not contain any facts that establish that

Wood and Santiago had any relationship before or after the police began its murder

investigation.

These factual allegations are accepted as true and the Court gives the Plaintiff the

benefit of all reasonable inferences. However, as was the case for Defendant Mason,

Defendant Wood did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff when he assisted the police

in its investigation. Moreover, the allegations contained in the Complaint do not

demonstrate a scintilla of wrongdoing on the part of Defendant Wood. Absent an

allegation of some sort of misconduct by Defendant Wood, Plaintiff has not alleged the

necessary element of breach of duty for his negligence claim.

For these reasons, it is beyond doubt that there is no legal theory upon which the

Plaintiff can recover against Defendant Wood. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim against

Defendant Wood must suffer the same fate as against Defendant Mason. The Court

grants Defendant Wood's motion to dismiss.

III. Dismissal of Action

Plaintiff presents the Court with an unopposed motion to dismiss this action as

against Defendant Darrel Motice and Andrew Stilson. A plaintiff, by order of the

Court, may voluntarily dismiss an action. M.R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) ("an action shall not be

dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms

8 and conditions as the court deems proper."). Given that there is no objection to this

motion, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant Darrell Motice and

Defendant Andrew Stilson.

Therefore, the entry is:

Plaintiff Pedro Santiago's Motion to Amend the pleadings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 15(a) is DENIED.

Defendant Kraig Mason's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED.

Defendant Lou Wood's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Pedro Santiago's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Darrel Motice and Defendant Andrew Stilson pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is GRANTED.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated at Portland, Maine this if#.. day of A~ . 2009

dl£L! Robert E. Crowley Justice, Superior Court

9 PEDRO SANTIAGO - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT MAINE STAT~ PRISON 807 CUSHING RD CUMBERLAND, ss. WARREN ME 04864 Docket No PORSC-CV-2008-00457

vs CARL SIMPSON - DEFENDANT DOCKET RECORD

Attorney for: CARL SIMPSON JAMES MARTEMUCCI - RETAINED 11/14/2008 GERMANI MARTEMUCCI RIGGLE & HILL 43 DEERING STREET PORTLAND ME 04101

PETER ADAMEN - DEFENDANT 7 SKILLINGS WOODS ROAD, TURNER ME 04282 LOU WOODS-DISMISSED 3-11-09 - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: LOU WOODS-DISMISSED 3-11-09 DAVID PERKINS - RETAINED PERKINS OLSON PA 30 MILK STREET PO BOX 449 PORTLAND ME 04112-0449

ANDREW STILSON-DISMISED 3-11-09 - DEFENDANT

DARREL MOTICE-DISMISSED 3-11-09 - DEFENDANT 56 ROCHESTER STREET, WESTBROOK ME 04092 KRAIG MASON-DISMISSED 3-11-09 - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: KRAIG MASON-DISMISSED 3-11-09 DAVID PERKINS - RETAINED PERKINS OLSON PA 30 MILK STREET PO BOX 449 PORTLAND ME 04112-0449

JACK WADE - DEFENDANT

MIKE JONES - DEFENDANT

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER NEGLIGENCE Filing Date: 08/07/2008

Docket Events: 08/07/2008 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/07/2008 COMPLAINT RETURNED TO SUPERIOR COURT SIGNED BY PEDRO SANTIAGO, PLAINTIFF. AD

08/14/2008 Party(s): PEDRO SANTIAGO MOTION - MOTION PROCEED W/O FEE FILED ON 08/07/2008 WITH INDIGENCY AFFIDVIT

08/14/2008 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON 08/14/2008 Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 03/12/2009 STATE OF IY1AINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss .CIVIL ACTION ./ DOCKET NO. CV -08t4~7 --/ ~~C- LfAM-e.//d-/()rp PEDRO SANTIAGO Plaintiff

v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT

PETER ADAMEN Defendant

BEFORE THE COURT

Plaintiff Pedro Santiago filed an Amended Complaint against Defendant

Peter Adamen in response to the court's June 16,2009 Order. The court reviews

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sua sponte, to detennine if Plaintiff's Complaint

should be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was convicted for the murder of Josh Dyer. Plaintiff filed a

Complaint on August 21, 2008, against eight individuals, including Defendant

Adamen. From the record it appears that Adamcn was served with process but

has not yet filed an answer. On April 1,2009, Plaintiff sought an entry of default

against Adamen pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 55(a) and sought a hearing on the issue

of damages. On April 7, 2009, the Clerk of Courts entered default against

Adamen, and issued an Order that a hearing would be held on damages after

Adamen's liabili ty was adjudicated. Plaintiff asserted Adamen negligentl y

assisted the Portland police in the investigation of the shooting incident, which

resulted in Josh Dyer's death. As explained in the Court's June 16, 2009 Order,

Plaintiff's Complaint did not set forth facts that demonstrated Adamen owed

Plaintiff a duty of care or breached a duty of care. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file em amended complaint alleging the requisite elements and facts against

Adamen necessary for a negligence action. Plaintiff filed his Amended 1 Complaint on October 21, 2009.

Plaintiff essentially attempts to assert a claim of spoliation of evidence as a

claim for negligence. 2 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges that on November

8, 2003, there was an incident between the Plaintiff and Josh Dyer, which

resulted in Dyer's death. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the incident,

Adamen was an employee of A & M Partners at the old Nissen Bakery building

on Washington Avenue in Portland, Maine. PI.'s Amended CompI. (n 3. Plaintiff

further all eges tha t Adamen assumed a duty of CMe when he took Offi cer

Hutchings of the Portland Police Departrnent into the security camera room of

the old Nissen Building and assisted the officer in the investigation of the

incident. let. 9J 4." Plaintiff alleges Adarnen breached that duty of care because he

was not trained in computer surveillance and crashed the computer that saved

surveillance camera images, making lLim liable for the destruction of exculpatory

evidence.

I By an Order dated October 29.2009, the court warned the Plaintiff that "the plaintiff

has unti I January 21. 20 10 to serve Defendant Peter Adamen pursuant to Rule 4 M. R. Civ. P. and to file the return of service with this court. Ira proper return of service is not tiled by January 21. 2010, the case will be dismissed." As of .January 22. 2010. the Plaintiff has not filed a proper return of service with the court. and on this ground alone. the case mav be dismissed. 2 The Law Court has never recognized the spoliation of evidence as a cause of action.

Breen F. Lucos. 2005 Me. Super. LEXIS 67. * 24; Lawrence 1'. Mooers. 2001 Me. Super. LEXIS 93, *2; see also Gagne 1'. .!onsen. Inc., 298 F.Supp. 2d 145. 147-48 (D.Me. 2003) (discussing that the court resolves claims based on the alleged spoliation of evidence through evidentiary sanctions). , At this time the identity of the criminal suspect was unknown. 2 DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court reviews Plaintiff's Complaint, sua sponte, as a Motion to

Dismiss. A Motion to Dismiss pursuant to M.R. Ci v. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal

sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, 'the material allegations of

the cornplaint must be taken as admitted.'" Slu7(l) v. SOlltllcrn Aroostook COIIIIII.

Scli. Dist., 683 A.2d 5U2, 503 (Me. 19(6) (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465

(Me. 1994)). When reviewing a Motion to Dismiss, this Court examines "the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plainti ff to determine whether it sets

forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff

to relief pursuant to some legal theory." ld. A dismissal under M.R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) will be granted only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is

entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his

claim." ld. (quoting Hn// v. Bd. of Ellvt!. Prot., 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985)). Tms

is a question of law. Bmll v. OllllllliJIgs, 2008 ME 18, <]I 7, 939 A.2d 676, 679.

II. Plaintiff's Negligence Claim

Plaintiff's claim asserts a negligence claim against Adamen. In order to

assert a prima facie case of negligence the Plaintiff must establish four elements:

0) a duty or standard of care; (2) breach of that duty or standard of care; (3) an

injury to the plaintiff caused by that breach of duty or standard of care; and (4)

damages. MnstrimlO v. Blyer, 2001 ME 134, err 11, 779 A.2d 951, 954. The existence

of a duty is a question of law. ld. A duty exists when the defendant is under an

obligation for the benefit of a particular plaintiff. TmsinJIi v. ClJIllberlnJId & York

Distributors, IIIC., 538 A.2d 258, 261 (Me. 1988). "Where a court imposes a duty in

a negligence case, 'the duty is always the same - to conform to the legal standard

3 of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk.'" Id. The court may

consider many factors in determining \vhether a duty exists, "including the hand

of history, our ideals of morals and justice, the convenience of administration of

the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss should fall." Gn/llcr v. DOWI/ E.

COIJIIJlllllify Hosp., 1999 ME 130, <][ 33, 735 A.2d 969, 976-77 (internal C)uotation

omitted).

A general obligation does not exist to protect others from harm not

created by the actor. BrYI7I1 R. v. Wnfcllfowcr Bible [-,' Trncf Soc'y, [IIC., 1999 ME 144,

action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself

impose upon him a duty to take such action." Id. 111, 738 A.2d at 844. The only

exception to this rule is where a special reldtionship exists between the plaintiff

and the defendant. DeCnllll'rn v. Cnrsoll, 2008 ME 127, 91 12,953 A.2d 1163, 1166.

Plaintiff asserts that Adamcn assumed a duty of care when he assisted the

Portland Police in their investigation of the November 8, 2003 incident. There is

no rule of law that stands for the proposition that a citizen cooperating with the

police in a murder investigation owes a duty to an unknown criminal defendant.

Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to assert that he and Adamen had a special

relationship that would give rise to a duty. Throughout the time that Adamen

assisted the police, he never owed a duty to Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff has not

asserted sufficient facts to impose a duty on Adanlen owed to Plaintiff,

Plaintiff's negligence claim fails.

4 Therefore, the entry is:

Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Adamen is DISMISSED

D ated at Portland, Maine this L2, ~ day of _--+=~_~"'<------' - ) 2009 . ,

obert E. Crowley Justice, Superior Court

5 F COURTS md County lox 287 le 04112-0287

PEDRO SANTIAGO ESQ MAINE STATE PRISON 807 CUSHING RD WARREN ME 04864

PETER ADAMEN A & M PARTNERS 120 EXCHANGE ST PORTLAND ME 04101