Winfield v. Florent et al, No. 1:2010cv10134 - Document 28 (D. Mass. 2011)

Court Description: Judge Joseph L. Tauro:ORDER entered. After reviewing Parties' submissions, this court hereby orders that: Defendants Watson and Comfort Suites Hotel's Motion for Entry of Separate and Final Judgment 19 is ALLOWED. No additional claims ex ist against Defendant Watson nor Defendant Comfort Suites Hotel. Defendants Shinners and Pearl's for Summary Judgment 21 is ALLOWED. Plaintiff was convicted of being a disorderly person and thus has not claim against Defendants for false arrest. This case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

Download PDF
Winfield v. Florent et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MARIE WINFIELD, * * * * * * * * * * Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH J. FLORENT, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-10134-JLT ORDER January 3, 2011 TAURO, J. After reviewing Parties’ submissions, this court hereby orders that: 1. Defendants Watson and Comfort Suites Hotel’s Motion for Entry of Separate and Final Judgment [#19] is ALLOWED. No additional claims exist against Defendant Watson nor Defendant Comfort Suites Hotel. 2. Defendants Shinners and Pearl’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#21] is ALLOWED. Plaintiff was convicted of being a disorderly person1 and thus has no claim against Defendants for false arrest.2 1 See Defs.’ Michael Shinners & Jason Pearl’s Mem. Law Supp. Their Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A [#22]. 2 See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (“[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 3. This case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Joseph L. Tauro United States District Judge conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” (internal citations omitted)). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.