Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS GEORGE GILLIS, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM KEATING, BOTH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY; and WILLIAM G. CHASE, BOTH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Civil Action No.11-10736-JLT

MEMORANDUM March 7, 2012 TAURO, J. I. Introduction This action stems from Plaintiff George Gillis's claim against former District Attorney of Norfolk County William Keating and Chief of Police of the Town of Westwood William Chase regarding alleged violations of Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Presently at issue are Defendant Keating's Motion to Dismiss [#6], Defendant Chase's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#14], and Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(d) [#21]. For the following reasons, Defendant Keating's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Chase's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are ALLOWED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(d) is DENIED AS MOOT. II. Background

A.

Factual Background1

On December 9, 2008, Plaintiff was operating a multi-wheeled truck removing rock and debris from a construction site in Westwood, Massachusetts.2 While operating the truck,

Plaintiff struck and fatally injured Edward Hansen, a pedestrian who had been videotaping the excavation work at the construction site.3 Mr. Hansen was pronounced dead upon his arrival at Caritas Norwood Hospital.4 At the time of the accident, Mr. Hansen was not wearing his prescribed hearing aids,5 and the truck driven by Plaintiff was in full working order.6 The reverse gear alarm on the truck was also sounding, though it appears Mr. Hansen did not hear it.7 The authorities responding to the scene, including members of the Westwood police,8 determined that Plaintiff was not under the influence of alcohol or narcotics at the time of the accident.9

Because the issues analyzed here arise in the context of a motion to dismiss, this court presents the facts as they are related in Plaintiff's Complaint [#1], see Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 321 (1st Cir. 2008), and construes those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see Pettengill v. Curtis, 584 F. Supp. 2d 348, 362 (D. Mass. 2008) (quoting Rodriguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir. 2007)).
2

1

Compl.

Download 28029.pdf

Massachusetts Law