Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171212_0000214.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:59:28+00:00

Document:
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT, NEIL LAIRD, alias, ROBERT TELLA, alias, ROBERT PACHECO, alias, each individually and in their official capacities as police officers in the Rhode Island Capitol Police, ROBERT MARCHAND, alias, individually and in his official capacity as an officer in the Rhode Island State Police, ANN ASSUMPICO, alias, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the Rhode Island Department of Public Safety and the Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police, JOSEPH T. LITTLE, alias, individually and in his capacity as the Chief of the Rhode Island Capitol Police, Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants Robert Pacheco's and Joseph T. Little's, in their Individual and Official Capacities, Motion To Dismiss (“Motion”). (ECF No. 18.) Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion with respect to Pacheco and GRANTS without prejudice the Motion with respect to Little.
Plaintiff has since asserted claims through 42 U.S.C § 1983 for retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment, false arrest and false imprisonment in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and excessive force and malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Relevant to this particular motion are the claims brought through § 1983 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations for excessive force brought against Pacheco, and First and Fourth Amendment violations brought against Little.
While deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court “accept[s] the truth of all well-pleaded facts and draw[s] all reasonable inferences therefrom in the pleader's favor.” García-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 102 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2012)). “[H]er claim must suggest ‘more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.'” Id. at 102- 03 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). In other words, “the claim must be ‘plausible on its face.'” Id. at 103 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In determining plausibility, “the reviewing court [must] draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Additionally, “the complaint must be read as a whole.” Id. (citing A.G. v. Elsevier, Inc., 732 F.3d 77, 78-79 (1st Cir. 2013)). Moreover, the “plausibility inquiry properly takes into account whether discovery can reasonably be expected to fill any holes in the pleader's case.” Id. at 104-05 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).

References: § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.