United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, CHIEF JUDGE.
case is before the Court on a motion from defendant Pawtucket
Police Department to dismiss (ECF No. 5) the complaint (ECF
No. 1) filed by plaintiff Luanda Haptonstahal. The Court
GRANTS the motion for the following reasons.
complaint consists of 33 handwritten pages containing 103
paragraphs, some of which are illegible. The legible portion
centers around three incidents. The first is an incident in
May 2017 involving Pawtucket officers asking Haptonstahal to
lower the volume on her television. (Compl. ¶ 4.) When
she failed to comply, the officers wrote her two citations,
and then allegedly loitered on her porch. (Id.
¶¶ 4-5, 8.)
second incident occurred in June 2017 when a Pawtucket
officer arrested Haptonstahal and held her in a hospital for
nine days. (Id. ¶ 62.) Haptonstahal alleges
that “Officer Duffy had his team raid her home”
(id. ¶ 63); that the officers deliberately left
her pets in the home to die (id. ¶ 64); and
that a female officer “molested” her by
“squeezing her braless breasts too hard”
(id. ¶ 65). Also as part of this incident,
Haptonstahal alleges that “Pawtucket Prosecutors . . .
in Providence District Court brain washed the justice to
demand that she have mental evaluation against her
will” (id. ¶ 52, 62), and that if not for
Officer Duffy forcing her to be held for nine days, his
conspiracy to break into her home would not have succeeded
(id. ¶ 80).
third constellation of events involved the police knocking on
her door at various points in January 2018. (Id.
¶ 24.) Haptonstahal never opened the door for the
police, but heard from her attorney that the officers were
there because she had made too many calls to the police.
(Id. ¶¶ 25, 27, 29.)
complaint purportedly contains fifteen counts. (ECF No. 1.)
Since filing the complaint, Haptonstahal has thrice moved to
amend. (ECF Nos. 11, 14, 16.) Pawtucket moves to
dismiss, primarily because the complaint is “largely
indecipherable due to the illegibility of what Defendant
presumes is Plaintiff's own handwriting.” (Mem. in
Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 5-1.) The Court has
deciphered enough of the complaint - both the facts stated
above and the legal claims addressed below - to say it fails
to state a plausible claim. See Damon v. Moore, 520
F.3d 98, 103 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
Count I: Sexual Assault, Willful Trespass, and Stalking
brings claims for sexual assault, willful trespass, and
stalking, but identifies no statutory basis for a private
right of action under the alleged criminal statutes. See
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79-80 (1975) (holding no
private action under criminal statutes absent clear statutory
basis for such inference); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard
D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, (1973) (“[A] private
citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”). Therefore,
these claims fail.
Count II: Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) states
that “no qualified individual with a disability shall,
by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation
in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or
activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. §
12132. A qualified individual under the ADA is “an
individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable
modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal
of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers,
or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the
essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of
services or the participation in programs or activities
provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
Haptonstahal has not alleged facts, taken as true, that would
make her a qualified individual. Indeed, Haptonstahal claims
she does not have a disability. (See ...