Duarte v. Frane et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

INFORMATION

Case 1:23-cv-11009-NMG Document139_ Filed 03/04/26 Pageiof5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ERIC J. DUARTE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
Vv. 23-11009-NMG
DANIELLE FRANE, et al.,
Defendants.

ee er ee eee eee ee

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.

Pro se plaintiff Eric Duarte brings this action concerning
alleged events and conditions of confinement while he was a
pretrial detainee confined at the Norfolk County Correctional
Center (“NCCC”).

Defendants, Norfolk County Sheriff's Office, Superintendent
Danielle France, Sheriff Patric McDermott, Assistant Deputy
superintendent Bill Casteel, Deputy Linsky, Deputy Gannon,
Deputy Brady, Assistance Deputy Superintendent Tara Glynn, and
Mental Health Director Ann Collines (collectively, the
“Defendants”), have filed a motion to dismiss Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
insufficient service of process and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (Docket #117). For the reasons stated below, the

Court will allow the motion and dismiss this action.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
GPO

Case 1:23-cv-11009-NMG Document139_ Filed 03/04/26 Page 2of5

I. Frivolous Claims

The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the docket
of this case, including the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”),
from which it has already dismissed Counts 1 and 11. Because
Duarte is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes the
pleading.

The United States Code provides that when a plaintiff

proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss his case “at

any time” if the Court determines that the action is, inter
alia, “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B); cé£.

Clorox Co. P.R. v. Proctor & Gamble, 228 F.3d 24, 30-31 (1st

Cir. 2000) (providing that a court may dismiss frivolous claims
without prior notice to a plaintiff). A complaint is
“frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). A

claim that is legally frivolous is one based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, such as infringement of a legal interest
that clearly does not exist. Id. at 327. “[A] finding of
factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise
to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or
not there are judicially noticeable facts available to

contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

In this case, Duarte makes factual assertions throughout

the SAC that “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly

Case 1:23-cv-11009-NMG Document 139 _ Filed 03/04/26 Page 3of5

incredible.” He claims that NCCC staff and others can “hear”
his thoughts and that defendants are “stalking to harass” him.
See SAC 4§ 48, 54, 62. He asserts that,

“[defendant’s] harassment was to humiliate plaintiff

in front of the entire jail allowing every inmate and

staff member access to hear everything plaintiff

thinks and failing to investigate plaintiff[’s]

claims.”
Id. § 97. Duarte alleges that Frane purposely searched out his
family to assist in the violation of his constitutional rights
by “invading the dreams of plaintiff inflicting wet dreams.”
Id. § 96. He claims that defendants violated his rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment by

“denying [him] protocols to investigate sexual

prevention claims, [but] finally allow[ing] him to

make a report after 18 months of severe staling [sic]

to harass as numerous sex assaults on a daily basis

being forced into sexual relations with staff members

including the Superintendent.”
Id. 4 105-106.

The Court declines to credit such frivolous allegations.
In an earlier review of the SAC, the Court dismissed the
independent “Stalking to Harass” count of the pleading.
Delusional allegations continue throughout the SAC and undermine
the viability of the other counts. To the extent that any other

count relies primarily on such allegations, they must also be

dismissed as frivolous.

Case 1:23-cv-11009-NMG Document 139 _ Filed 03/04/26 Page4of5

II. Failure to State a Claim Upon for Relief

To the extent that Durante’s claims do not substantially
rely on his frivolous allegations, the SAC nevertheless fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) (6), the subject pleading must contain sufficient factual
matter to state a claim for relief that is actionable as a

matter of law and “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Igbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if,
after accepting as true all non-conclusory factual allegations,
the court can draw the reasonable inference that the defendant

is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ocasio-Hernandez v.

Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (lst Cir. 2011).

When rendering such a determination, a court may consider
certain categories of documents extrinsic to the complaint
“without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for

summary judgment.” Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29, 36

(lst Cir. 2013) (citing Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (lst
Cir. 1993)). For instance, a court may consider documents of
undisputed authenticity, official public records, documents
central to a plaintiff’s claim and documents that were
sufficiently referred to in the complaint. Watterson, 987 F.2d

at 3.

Case 1:23-cv-11009-NMG Document139_ Filed 03/04/26 Page5of5

A court may not disregard properly pled factual allegations
in the complaint even if actual proof of those facts is
improbable. Id. at 12. Rather, the court’s inquiry must focus
on the reasonableness of the inference of liability that
plaintiff is asking the court to draw. Id. at 13.

Here, the SAC contains legal and factual conclusions,
including “laundry lists” of alleged misconduct that are
unsupported by factual content necessary to permit the Court to
draw a reasonable inference that any defendant is liable to
Duarte. The Court recognizes that the SAC includes allegations
of inadequate mental health care, e.g., SAC §§ 54, 58, 74, 75,
but such allegations are nonetheless, insufficient to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted (Docket # 117) is ALLOWED and this action is DISMISSED.

So ordered.

P thy. batter,

Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge

Dated: 03 / o4f /2026