Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon

Background

Matthew J. Fecteau filed the lawsuit without a lawyer against the City of Mount Vernon, Commissioner Patrick Holder, Commissioner David Gibson, Sergeant Mario Stewart, Detective Montika Jones, Charlene Humphreys, and Dawnette McLaren-Nelson. His amended complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including alleged First Amendment retaliation, unlawful entry under the Fourth Amendment, denial of due process and property seizure under the Fifth Amendment, and a claim against the City based on municipal policy or custom. The opinion does not decide those claims.

The order addresses ten motions filed by Fecteau and non-party Safety National Casualty Corporation. The opinion states that the separate motion to dismiss the municipal-liability claim and Fecteau’s motion to compel Safety National’s joinder remained pending for decision by Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

Rulings on the Motions

Insurance-policy production and discovery conference

The court denied Fecteau’s motion to compel production of Safety National’s insurance policy and for sanctions. The court found the production request moot because Fecteau had received a copy of the policy. It also held that the initial disclosure obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 had not yet been triggered because no scheduling conference or case-management and scheduling order had been issued.

The court denied Fecteau’s motion to compel a conference under Rule 26(f). It held that the request was premature because no Rule 16 scheduling conference had been scheduled. The court also stated that discovery could not begin until Judge Kenneth M. Karas held a Rule 16 conference and entered a case-management and scheduling order.

Safety National’s sanctions motion

The court granted Safety National’s motion for sanctions and directed Fecteau to stop sending threatening, harassing, and intimidating communications to Safety National and its counsel. The court warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action. The order does not state that a monetary sanction was imposed.

Fecteau’s motion to strike and sanctions request

The court denied Fecteau’s motion to strike Safety National’s sanctions motion and to impose sanctions against Safety National. It held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to strike material from a pleading, and Safety National’s sanctions motion was not a pleading. The court also denied Fecteau’s request for sanctions under Rule 11 because Safety National’s filing was not objectively unreasonable, its allegations were factually supported, Rule 11 sanctions could not be sought against a non-party, and Fecteau had not filed the request separately from his other motion or provided the required opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged filing.

Rule 7.1 disclosure statements

The court denied both of Fecteau’s motions to compel Safety National to file a disclosure statement under Rule 7.1. The court held that the rule applies to a nongovernmental corporate party or a nongovernmental corporation seeking to intervene. Safety National was neither a party nor a corporation seeking to intervene.

Requests for judicial notice

Judicial notice is a procedure allowing a court to accept certain facts without requiring proof when they are generally known or can be accurately determined from reliable sources. The court granted Fecteau’s request to take judicial notice that two felony complaints had been filed against Charlene Humphreys, but not of the truth of the allegations in those complaints.

The court denied judicial notice of Humphreys’s affidavit in Fecteau’s criminal case, facts concerning the Mount Vernon Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau investigation, a press release concerning Stewart’s conviction, alleged ongoing violations by the defendants, a state-court order to show cause and notice of claim, and a decision and order in a neighbor’s case. The court found that Fecteau was generally offering those materials to prove the truth of disputed facts or to support his complaint, which was not a proper use of judicial notice.

The court deferred ruling on Fecteau’s request to reconsider the denial of declaratory relief and issue a declaratory judgment. The order states that Judge Karas would address that request. The court also directed Fecteau to file requests for judicial notice only in connection with an existing motion.

Disposition

The order denied Fecteau’s motion to compel production of the insurance policy and for sanctions; denied his request to compel a Rule 26(f) conference; granted Safety National’s motion for sanctions and issued the warning concerning communications; denied Fecteau’s motion to strike and for sanctions; denied his motions to compel a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement; granted judicial notice that two felony complaints were filed against Humphreys; deferred ruling on reconsideration of declaratory relief; and denied the remaining requests for judicial notice.