Murphy v. City of Providence, et al.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
)
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	C.A. No. 22-115 WES
)
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
Presently before 	the Court 	is Plaintiff’s Motion 	to Amend 	his
Complaint, 	ECF 	No. 	26, 	in 	which 	he 	seeks 	to 	add 	Providence 	Police
Officer 	Irvin 	Torres 	as 	an 	additional 	Defendant 	and 	add 	factual
allegations 	regarding 	the 	contents 	of 	an 	eyewitness 	civilian
complaint 	describing 	Plaintiff’s 	arrest. 	For 	the 	reasons 	that
follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On October 20, 	2020, Plaintiff arrived at the 	Knight Memorial
Library on Elmwood Avenue in Providence to participate in a protest
in honor of Jhamal Gonsalves who was injured two days prior during a
motor vehicle collision involving the Providence Police. 	Compl.
¶ 	9, 	n. 	1, 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	The 	protestors, 	including 	Plaintiff, 	moved
from the library to the Providence Public Safety Complex where they
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
were met with a significant police presence that included barricades
and several 	lines 	of 	officers 	equipped 	with 	riot 	gear 	and 	wooden
clubs. 	Id. ¶¶ 15–18.
During the entire protest Plaintiff was standing 	in the front
row 	of 	protestors 	and 	moved 	as 	the 	police 	directed, 	always
maintaining some distance from police. 	Id. 	¶¶ 27, 32. 	Eventually,
the police directed the protestors south down Dean Street, stopping
briefly 	at 	the 	intersection 	of 	Dean 	and 	Westminster 	Streets. 	Id.
¶¶ 33–38. 	As the police line started to move, Plaintiff, still right
in front of the police line, attempted to move away until Defendant
Officer Tavares broke from the rest of the officers and struck 	him
with 	a 	wooden 	baton, 	bringing 	him 	to 	the 	ground. 	Id. 	¶¶ 40-41.
While the police marched passed, three officers remained 	behind 	to
arrest Plaintiff. 	Id. ¶ 44. 	Plaintiff was charged with disorderly
conduct and resisting legal or illegal arrest. 	Id. 	¶¶ 73–75.
On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case
against the City of Providence and the Treasurer James J. Lombardi,
Providence 	Police 	Officer 	Flavio 	Tavares, 	Chief 	of 	Police 	for
Providence Hugh 	T. Clements, and 	the Commissioner of Public 	Safety
for 	the 	City 	of 	Providence 	Steven 	M. 	Pare. 	Id. 	¶¶ 	2-6. 	The
Complaint alleges violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure via 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; 	impairment 	of 	the 	freedom 	of 	assembly 	and 	speech 	in
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to § 1983;
malicious 	prosecution 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	Fourth, 	Fifth, 	and
Fourteenth 	Amendments 	actionable 	through 	§ 1983; 	violation 	of 	the
right to be free 	from unreasonable search and seizure in violation
of Article I, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution; impairment
of freedom of assembly and speech in violation of Article 1, section
21 	of 	the 	Rhode 	Island 	Constitution; 	malicious 	prosecution 	in
violation 	of 	Article 	1, 	sections 	2, 	6, 	and 	7 	of 	the 	Rhode Island
Constitution; common law assault; common law battery; and common law
false arrest and false imprisonment. 	Id. 	¶¶ 97– 106.
On 	March 	31, 	2023, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	amend 	his
Complaint seeking to (1) name Providence Police Officer Irvin Torres
as 	an 	additional 	Defendant 	in 	both 	his 	individual 	and 	official
capacities 	for 	engaging 	in 	excessive 	force 	and 	unlawful 	arrest
against 	Plaintiff 	in 	violation 	of 	his 	constitutional 	and 	civil
rights and (2) add factual allegations regarding the contents 	of 	an
eyewitness 	civilian 	complaint 	describing 	the 	arrest. 	Mem. 	Supp.
Mot. Am. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) 1–2., ECF No. 26-1. 	The proposed Amended
Complaint also adds a link to a YouTube video that depicts the arrest.
Am. Compl. 	¶ 43, ECF No. 	26-2.
Defendant Officer Tavares and proposed Defendant Officer Torres
object 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	proposed 	amendment 	to 	add 	Officer Torres as
an 	additional 	Defendant 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	amendment 	is
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
premature, 	futile, 	and 	is 	unduly 	prejudicial 	to 	Officer 	Torres.
Defs.’ Resp. Opp’n (“Defs.’ Opp’n”) 1, ECF No. 27. 	Defendants also
argue 	that 	the 	addition 	of 	the 	allegations 	regarding 	the 	civilian
complaint 	and 	YouTube 	video 	are 	futile 	and 	unduly 	prejudicial 	to
Officer Torres because they do not provide enough evidence to support
a claim against him. 	Id. at 2. 	Lastly, Defendants object because
Officer 	Torres 	is 	on 	military 	leave 	until 	January 	2024 	and 	they
contend 	that 	discovery 	will 	have 	to 	be 	stayed 	until 	his 	return 	if
the motion to amend is granted. 	Id. at 3.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	15(a)(2) 	states, 	in 	relevant
part, 	that 	a 	party 	may 	amend 	their 	pleading 	with 	the 	approval 	of
the 	other 	party 	or 	with 	the 	court’s 	leave. 	The 	rule 	goes 	on 	to
state 	that 	a 	court 	should 	freely 	give 	leave 	to 	amend 	when 	justice
so 	requires. 	Id. 	“In 	the 	absence 	of 	any 	apparent 	or 	declared
reason 	such 	as 	undue 	delay, 	bad 	faith, 	or 	dilatory 	motive 	on 	the
part 	of 	the 	movant, 	repeated 	failure 	to 	cure 	deficiencies 	by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party
by 	virtue 	of 	allowance 	of 	the 	amendment, 	futility 	of 	amendment,
etc.— 	the 	leave 	sought 	should, 	as 	the 	rules 	require, 	be 	‘freely
given.’” 	Amyndas Pharms., S.A. v. Zealand Pharma A/S, 48 F.4th 18,
36 	(1st 	Cir. 	2022) 	(quoting 	Foman 	v. 	Davis, 	371 	U.S. 	178, 	182
(1962)).
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
When a motion to 	amend is filed 	before discovery is scheduled
to 	end 	and 	before 	any 	party 	files 	a 	summary 	judgment 	motion, 	the
futility of the amendment is determined by the same standard as that
used 	to 	assess 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). 	Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617,
623 	(1st 	Cir. 	1996). 	Under 	that 	standard, 	an 	amendment 	is 	not
futile if it sets forth a claim that, if proven true, would entitle
a 	plaintiff 	to 	relief. 	Hatch 	v. 	Dep't 	for 	Child., 	Youth 	& 	Their
Fams., 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001). 	Further, when determining
the 	futility 	amendment, 	the 	Court 	must 	take 	all 	the 	facts 	pleaded
in a plaintiff’s complaint as true. 	Id.
The Court must also consider the totality of the circumstances
when 	deciding 	a 	motion 	to 	amend. 	Nikitine 	v. 	Wilmington 	Tr. 	Co.,
715 	F.3d 	388, 	390 	(1st 	Cir. 	2013). 	One 	consideration is whether
the proposed amendment would require the 	non-moving party to remake
their case by pursuing additional legal theories necessitated by the
amendment. 	Carmona 	v. 	Toledo, 	215 	F.3d 	124, 136 (1st 	Cir. 	2000).
In Carmona, the First Circuit reversed 	the 	district 	court’s 	denial
of 	the 	plaintiff’s 	motion 	to 	amend 	her 	complaint 	to 	add 	a 	named
defendant whose identity was revealed during 	discovery, explaining
that 	because 	“the 	claims 	against 	the 	individual 	officers 	were
pending 	since 	the 	inception 	of 	this 	litigation 	and 	no 	new 	legal
theories are involved in the amendment, we do not perceive surprise
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
or 	prejudice 	to 	defendants 	nor 	any 	other 	reason 	for 	the 	district
court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend.” 	Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
In their 	objection to 	Plaintiff’s motion 	to 	amend, Defendants
contend 	that 	the 	proposed 	amendments 	are 	premature, 	futile, 	and
unduly 	prejudicial 	to 	the 	proposed 	Defendant 	Officer 	Torres.
Defendants’ 	arguments 	of 	undue 	prejudice 	and 	the 	futility 	are
focused on attacking the sufficiency of the facts presented in the
proposed 	amendment. 	Defendants 	also 	suggest 	that 	the 	proposed
amendment 	should 	be 	denied 	because 	Officer 	Torres 	is 	currently 	on
military leave.
Specifically, 	Defendants 	argue 	that 	there 	has 	been 	nothing
discovered 	to 	date 	that 	explicitly 	names 	Officer 	Torres 	as 	the
officer 	that 	allegedly 	struck 	Plaintiff 	while 	making 	the 	arrest.
Defs.’ Opp’n 1. 	However, Plaintiff explains that in response to a
request 	for 	production 	of 	documents 	in 	Plaintiff’s 	criminal 	case,
the 	City 	of 	Providence 	provided 	emails 	between 	the 	Providence
Assistant 	City 	Solicitor 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	criminal 	defense 	attorney
that identify Officer Torres as the arresting officer. 	Pl.’s Mem.
4. 	Plaintiff 	also 	cites 	interrogatory 	responses 	that 	identify
Officer 	Torres 	as 	being 	present 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	arrest. 	Id.
at 4–5. 	Defendants try to refute this information by arguing that
it 	is 	not 	clear 	as 	to 	what 	extent 	Officer 	Torres 	was 	involved 	in
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
the 	arrest. 	Defs.’ 	Opp’n 	1. 	I n 	d o i n g 	s o , 	Defendants
misunderstand the current procedural posture of the case and confuse
the 	issues: 	they 	are 	essentially 	making summary judgment arguments
even 	though 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	standard 	applies.1 	The 	added
allegations 	provided 	in 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	amendment, 	if 	proven 	true,
are 	enough 	to 	tie 	Officer 	Torres 	to 	the 	arrest 	and 	therefore 	are
sufficient to state a claim for relief. 	See Hatch, 274 F.3d at 19.
Defendants 	also 	point 	out 	that 	the 	civilian 	making 	the
complaint 	never 	identified 	Officer 	Torres 	by 	name. 	Defs.’ 	Opp’n
2. 	Defendants 	note 	that 	the 	Complaint 	only 	states 	that 	a 	row 	of
police 	knocked 	Plaintiff 	to 	the 	ground 	and 	repeatedly 	kicked 	and
hit him with their batons. 	Id. 	Again, Defendants’ arguments are
misplaced 	as 	they 	address 	the 	sufficiency 	of 	the 	evidence-–an
argument 	best 	suited 	for 	a 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment 	or 	trial-–
rather 	than 	whether 	the 	facts 	as 	alleged 	state 	a 	claim 	upon 	which
relief 	can 	be 	granted. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	rejects 	this
argument.
Defendants further contend that the link to a YouTube video of
the 	arrest 	that 	Plaintiff 	seeks 	to 	add 	to 	his 	Complaint 	does 	not
depict the arresting officers using excessive force but rather shows
them acting within protocol and, therefore, its addition is futile.
Id. 	Like 	their 	previous 	arguments, 	this 	argument 	is 	misplaced
1 To be fair, based on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, it is
understandable why Defendants made these arguments.
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
given 	the 	procedural 	posture 	of 	the 	case 	and, 	therefore, 	is 	not
relevant to determining the futility of the amendment.
Finally, 	Defendants 	argue 	that 	the 	Court 	should 	deny
Plaintiff’s motion because Officer Torres is on military leave until
January 2024 and therefore a stay of discovery will be necessary if
the proposed amendment is allowed. 	Id. at 3. 	I n 	s u p p o r t ,
Defendants 	cite 	the 	Servicemembers 	Civil 	Relief 	Act 	which 	states
that 	“[a]t 	any 	stage 	before 	a 	final 	judgment 	in 	a 	civil 	action 	or
proceeding in which a servicemember . . . is a party, the court may
on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember,
stay 	the 	action 	for 	a 	period 	of 	not 	less 	than 	90 	days 	. . .” 	50
U.S.C. § 3932(b)(1). 	However, Defendants do not 	cite any caselaw
that 	supports 	their 	position 	that 	the 	motion 	to 	amend 	should 	be
denied because a proposed Defendant is currently on military leave,
potentially requiring some delay in discovery. 	Further, Defendants
have not explained how such a delay will cause them prejudice.
Plaintiff’s 	proposed 	amendments 	come 	in 	light 	of 	information
that was unknown before discovery. 	He seeks to add Officer Torres
as 	a 	named 	Defendant 	previously 	described 	in 	the 	Complaint 	as 	an
unnamed 	“arresting 	officer,” 	as 	well 	as 	some 	additional 	facts
regarding an eyewitness civilian complaint 	and a link to a YouTube
video 	depicting 	the 	arrest. 	The 	additional 	facts 	presented 	in
Plaintiff’s 	proposed 	amendment 	are 	used 	to 	support 	his 	original
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
claims. 	The Amended Complaint does not add any additional claims
for 	relief 	that 	would 	require 	the 	Defendants 	to 	remake 	their 	case
or 	pursue 	additional 	legal 	theories. 	Thus, 	there 	is 	no 	risk 	of
surprise 	or 	undue 	prejudice 	to 	Officer 	Torres 	or 	the 	other
Defendants. 	This amendment comes before discovery is scheduled to
end 	and 	Plaintiff 	is 	not 	accused 	of 	any 	undue 	delay 	or 	dilatory
motives. 	The 	totality 	of 	the 	circumstances 	surrounding 	this
amendment supports its granting. 	See Carmona, 215 F.3d at 136.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion, ECF No. 26, is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: 	August 3, 2023
Case 1:22-cv-00115-WES-PAS Document 31 Filed 08/03/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>