LANE v. CITY OF ROCKLAND et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GLENNIS K. LANE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:22-cv-00058-JAW
)
CITY OF ROCKLAND, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 4, 2022, Glennis K. Lane filed a complaint in this Court,
alleging that Rockland police falsely imprisoned her and violated her civil
rights during her May 2020 arrest. 	Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46-63 (ECF No. 45). 	Ms.
Lane brought suit against the city of Rockland and several police officers and
city officials. Id. The Defendants moved to dismiss most counts of Ms. Lane’s
claim.1 Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal of Compl. at 10 (ECF No. 13) (Defs.’
Mot. to Dismiss).
1 	Ms. Lane’s suit includes six counts filed against varying and at times unknown
combinations of the eight defendants. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46-63. Defendants ask the Court to
dismiss all counts as pleaded against all defendants, except for the false imprisonment claim
(Count IV) as pleaded against the City, Counts I and III-IV as pleaded against Officer Michael
Rolerson, and Counts I-IV as pleaded against the four unnamed John and Jane Doe
defendants. Defs.’ Mot to Dismiss at 10; Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss at 5 n.5
(ECF No. 46) (Recommended Decision) (“[t]he Defendants do not seek the dismissal of [Ms.]
Lane’s false imprisonment claim against the City . . . [or her] substantive claims against [Mr.]
Rolerson”).
The John and Jane Doe defendants are unknown “police officers, supervisors, policy
makers, and/or officials employed by the City of Rockland.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-13. It is not
clear which claims Ms. Lane brings against which unnamed defendants, but the Defendants’
motion to dismiss did not request dismissal of Counts I-IV as pleaded against the John and
Jane Does. 	See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 10 (requesting dismissal of the damages counts
“against all Defendants” but dismissal of the other claims only against specific defendants).
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 49 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on January 31,
2023, her Recommended Decision in which she recommended that the Court
dismiss: (1) all claims against City Manager Thomas Luttrell and Chief of
Police Christopher Young (Counts I-VI); (2) the civil rights claims against the
City (Counts I-III); and (3) the separate claims for damages and punitive
damages 	as 	to 	all 	remaining 	defendants 	(Counts 	V-VI). 	Recommended
Decision at 15-16. 	If accepted, the only claims remaining would be the false
imprisonment claim against the City and the substantive claims against
Officer Rolerson and the John and Jane Doe defendants. 	The Magistrate
Judge also recommended that the Court decline to determine the availability
of punitive damages against the City at this stage in the proceedings. Id.
On 	February 	14, 	2023, 	the 	Defendants 	filed 	an 	objection 	to 	the
Recommended Decision, objecting only to the portion of the Recommended
Decision that declined to recommend dismissal of Ms. Lane’s request for
punitive damages against the City under state law. 	Defs.’ Partial Obj. to
Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 47) (Defs.’ Obj.). Ms. Lane
did not file an objection, but on February 28, 2023, filed a response to the
Defendants’ objection. Pl.’s Resp. Mem. to Defs.’ Partial Obj. to Recommended
Decision on Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 48) (Pl.’s Resp.). The parties’ dispute is
confined only to the narrow question of punitive damages on the state law false
imprisonment claim and neither party raises any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to dismiss most of Ms. Lane’s other claims.
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 49 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The 	Court 	reviewed 	and 	considered 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
Recommended Decision, together with the entire record and made a de novo
determination 	of 	all 	matters 	adjudicated 	by 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
Recommended Decision. The Court concurs with the recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision and
determines that the following claims should be dismissed: (1) all claims against
City Manager Thomas Luttrell and Chief of Police Christopher Young (Counts
I-VI); (2) the civil rights claims against the City (Counts I-III); and (3) the
separate claims for damages and punitive damages as to all remaining
defendants (Counts V-VI).
The Court also rejects the Defendants’ objection and underlying request
that the Court dismiss Ms. Lane’s request for punitive damages on her false
imprisonment claim. See Def.’s Obj. at 2 (the Magistrate Judge “should have
recommended dismissal of the request for punitive damages against the City,
as those damages are not recoverable as a matter of law”). 	The Defendants
reason that, because the state law false imprisonment claim “sounds in tort, it
is subject to the provisions of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA),” which does
not permit the award of punitive damages against a government entity. 	Id.;
see also 14 M.R.S. § 8105(5) (“[n]o judgment or award against a governmental
entity shall include punitive or exemplary damages”). 	While the Defendants
may ultimately prove correct on whether Ms. Lane may recover punitive
damages on her false imprisonment claim, the Court does not find this remedy
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 49 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
to be properly disposed of at the motion to dismiss stage, especially where the
motion does not seek dismissal of the underlying claim.
Ms. Lane’s Amended Complaint brought standalone claims for damages
and punitive damages. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59-63 (“COUNT V-Damages” and
“COUNT 	VI-Punitive 	Damages”). 	The 	Magistrate 	Judge 	recommended
dismissal of those counts, see Recommended Decision at 13-14, and the Court
affirms that recommendation. 	The parties’ dispute focuses not on those
standalone counts but on the fact that “[e]ach substantive count in [Ms.] Lane’s
complaint contains a general prayer for damages, so the dismissal of her
separate ‘claims’ for damages and punitive damages would nevertheless leave
those prayers intact.” Id. at 14 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46-58). The Defendants
argue that, while they have not sought dismissal of Count IV as pleaded
against the City, the Court should nonetheless dismiss Ms. Lane’s request for
punitive damages as a possible remedy on that count. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at
10.
The 	Magistrate 	Judge 	recommended 	“that 	the 	Court 	exercise 	its
discretion and decline to resolve whether punitive damages are recoverable
against the City at this stage in the proceedings.” 	Recommended Decision at
15; see also D’Pergo Custom Guitars, Inc., v. Sweetwater Sound, Inc., No. 17-
cv-747-LM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208440, at *15 (D.N.H. Dec. 11, 2018)
(declining to dismiss a plaintiff’s “request for punitive damages” because
“whether 	punitive 	damages 	are 	recoverable 	is 	not 	a 	proper 	subject 	for
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 49 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
adjudication in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion” (cleaned up)); Bernard v. Town of
Lebanon, No. 2:16-cv-00042-JAW, 2017 WL 1232406, at *6 n.3 (D. Me. Apr. 3,
2017) (declining to resolve the availability of punitive damages on a motion to
dismiss because “the issue may not be amenable to resolution by a motion to
dismiss”).
The Court finds D’Pergo instructive. 	The district judge in D’Pergo
considered a request by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff’s requests for
punitive damages—included in the general request for damages on each
claim—because punitive damages were not an available remedy for each of
those claims. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208440, at *15. The district judge noted
that “[a] general request for punitive damages is not a ‘claim for relief’ within
the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), but a request for a
remedy” and “[a]s such, the court will not dismiss D’Pergo’s request for
punitive damages at this stage of the proceedings.” Id. (citations omitted). The
Court adopts the same logic in rejecting the Defendants’ objection.
The Defendants do not offer a direct response to the Magistrate Judge’s
employment of D’Pergo, but instead counter that “both circuit courts of appeals
and district courts in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
have held that dismissal of punitive damage claims pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion is appropriate.” Def.’s Mot. at 2 (collecting cases). The Court assumes
that it has the authority to dismiss a claim for punitive damages—indeed, it
dismisses Ms. Lane’s claims for punitive damages today—but it finds, as did
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 49 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
the court in D’Pergo, that dismissing a claim for punitive damages is inherently
different from dismissing punitive damages as a possible remedy for a claim
that has not been challenged. 	The Court does not find it necessary or
appropriate at this stage to dismiss Ms. Lane’s request for punitive damages
on her false imprisonment claim against the City.
1. 	It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of
the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	(ECF 	No. 	46) 	be 	and 	hereby 	is
AFFIRMED.
2. 	The Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ Motion for Partial
Dismissal of Complaint (ECF No. 13) namely to the extent the
Defendants seek dismissal of: (1) all claims against City
Manager Thomas Luttrell and Chief of Police Christopher
Young (Counts I-VI); (2) the civil rights claims against the city
of Rockland (Counts I-III); and (3) the separate claims for
damages and punitive damages as to all remaining defendants
(Counts V-VI).
3. 	The Court DISMISSES in part without prejudice Defendants’
Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint (ECF No. 13)
namely to the extent the city of Rockland seeks dismissal of
the Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages against it.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2023
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 49 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>