Schand v. City of Springfield

D. Massachusetts

Schand v. City of Springfield

DecidedMarch 6, 2019

Docket3:15-cv-30148

StatusUnknown

This text of Schand v. City of Springfield (Schand v. City of Springfield) 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

Schand v. City of Springfield, (D. Mass. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MARK SCHAND, MIA SCHAND, ) MARK SCHAND JR., QUINTON SCHAND, ) and KIELE SCHAND, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 15-cv-30148-MAP ) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ) ELMER MCMAHON, LEONARD SCAMMONS, ) RAYMOND P. MUISE, MICHAEL REID, ) and JOSEPH ASSAD, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING March 6, 2019

PONSOR, U.S.D.J. On February 22, 2019, the First Circuit issued its opinion in Gray v. Thomas Cummings, No. 18-1303. The opinion addressed the issue of municipal liability in the context of a claim for failure to train police officers of the Town of Athol. In that case, the court found expert testimony, suggesting that Athol’s training regimen was faulty, insufficient to support liability for failure to train. Plaintiff, the court said, had to present evidence that the town “knew or had reason to believe” training was inadequate. The absence of evidence of past violations “sufficient to put

the Town on notice of such effects” constituted a “yawning gap” in Plaintiff’s evidence. Slip Op. at 24, citing Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 72 (2011) and Hill v. Walsh, 884 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir. 2018). Counsel will submit supplemental memoranda regarding the

impact of Gray, of no more than five pages in length, on or before March 13, 2019. It is so ordered. Michael A. Ponsor U.S. District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MARK SCHAND, MIA SCHAND, ) MARK SCHAND JR., QUINTON SCHAND, ) and KIELE SCHAND, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 15-cv-30148-MAP ) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ) ELMER MCMAHON, LEONARD SCAMMONS, ) RAYMOND P. MUISE, MICHAEL REID, ) and JOSEPH ASSAD, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING March 6, 2019

PONSOR, U.S.D.J. On February 22, 2019, the First Circuit issued its opinion in Gray v. Thomas Cummings, No. 18-1303. The opinion addressed the issue of municipal liability in the context of a claim for failure to train police officers of the Town of Athol. In that case, the court found expert testimony, suggesting that Athol’s training regimen was faulty, insufficient to support liability for failure to train. Plaintiff, the court said, had to present evidence that the town “knew or had reason to believe” training was inadequate. The absence of evidence of past violations “sufficient to put

the Town on notice of such effects” constituted a “yawning gap” in Plaintiff’s evidence. Slip Op. at 24, citing Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 72 (2011) and Hill v. Walsh, 884 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir. 2018). Counsel will submit supplemental memoranda regarding the

impact of Gray, of no more than five pages in length, on or before March 13, 2019. It is so ordered. Michael A. Ponsor U.S. District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schand v. City of Springfield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schand-v-city-of-springfield-mad-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack