Civil rights – Wrongful conviction – Withheld evidence

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff whose conviction was overturned based on the discovery of exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from his defense has brought suit against the defendant city of Boston, the city’s motion to dismiss should be allowed in part and denied in part, as the plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a respondeat superior claim cognizable under Massachusetts law but he has adequately alleged a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim against the city based on its alleged failure to properly train its police officers.

“Plaintiff Albert Brown, otherwise known as Floyd Hamilton, was incarcerated for the murder of Efrain DeJesus for over thirty years until his conviction was overturned in 2022 based on the discovery of exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from his defense. Hamilton now sues the City of Boston, a Boston Police Department (‘BPD’) detective named Peter O’Malley, and Does 1 through 10 of the BPD for their role in his arrest and prosecution. In addition to his claims against the other defendants, Hamilton asserts that the City violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 by depriving him of his constitutional rights; engaged in negligent hiring, training, and supervision; and is responsible for its officers’ actions under a respondeat superior theory of liability.

“Pending before the Court is the City’s partial motion to dismiss the section 1983 and respondeat superior claims against it. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted with respect to the respondeat superior claim but denied as to the section 1983 claim. Hamilton fails to allege sufficient facts to support a respondeat superior claim cognizable under Massachusetts law. He has, however, adequately alleged a section 1983 claim against the City for having a policy that permitted BPD officers to withhold and fabricate evidence and for failing to train, supervise, or discipline those officers on preventing the suppression and fabrication of evidence. …

“In sum, Hamilton has sufficiently stated a section 1983 claim against the City based on its allegedly unconstitutional policy and purported failure to properly train BPD officers. The City’s motion to dismiss this Count will, accordingly, be denied. …

“Count Ten asserts a claim of respondeat superior against the City under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (‘MTCA’), M.G.L.c. 258. …

“… Because Hamilton fails to allege any respondeat superior theory that falls outside of the purview of sections 10(c) and 10(h) of the MTCA or is not otherwise covered by Count Five, Count Ten will be dismissed.”

Brown v. City of Boston, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-462-25) (12 pages) (Kobick, J.) (Docket No. 1:24-cv-12687-JEK) (Aug. 21, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.