Mello v. Arruda et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
JOSHUA MELLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN ROCCHIO and EDWARD
ARRUDA,
Defendants,
______________________________________
JOSHUA MELLO and RACHEL WARE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN ROCCHIO and EDWARD
ARRUDA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 23-cv-479-JJM-PAS
C.A. No. 23-cv-480-JJM-PAS
ORDER
Before the Court are two matters for its consideration in this consolidated case
where Plaintiffs Joshua Mello and Rachel Ware allege that Defendant Officers John
Rocchio and Edward Arruda used unconstitutionally excessive force against them in
connection with and following Mr. Mello’s arrest at a Cranston Middle School.
Mr. Mello and Ms. Ware filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the October 8 Order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (also captioned as a Motion to Reconsider),
where this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 126 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(“R&R”) denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 	ECF No. 116/145. 1
Plaintiffs also object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF No. 117/146), denying their
Motion to Amend their Complaint (Second) (ECF No. 107/136). ECF No. 119. In sum,
the Court must decide whether to adopt the R&R denying Plaintiffs’ second Motion
to Amend and whether to alter and/or reconsider its decision adopting the R&R
denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. 	MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT AND FOR RECONSIDERATION
As to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter Judgment, the Court notes at the outset that
judgment has not entered in this case so there is no judgment to alter. 	The
Magistrate 	Judge 	issued 	a 	well-reasoned 	R&R 	denying 	Plaintiffs’ 	Motion 	for
Summary Judgment and the Court accepted it. 	A court cannot grant summary
judgment if facts that are material to the legal claims are in dispute. The Magistrate
Judge identified disputed facts and properly decided that these disputes precluded
Plaintiffs’ motion.2 Contrary to what Plaintiffs argue here, the Magistrate Judge did
not find for Defendants or against Plaintiffs’ claims in denying the motion for
1 The docketing numbers in these two cases are different but the filings are the
same. 	The Court cites the ECF number in 23-cv-479 first and the one in 23-480
second.
2 Plaintiffs argue that the Court should have granted their motion because the
Magistrate Judge improperly applied the summary judgment standard, viewed the
evidence, and made credibility determinations in Defendants’ favor, and treated them
unfairly throughout their case. 	Plaintiffs are wrong on all fronts. 	The Magistrate
Judge correctly evaluated Plaintiffs’ motion and their evidence under the summary
judgment standard. 	In fact, the four examples in Plaintiffs’ motion that address
findings the Magistrate Judge made highlight that she denied Plaintiffs’ motion
because she found disputes of fact better left to a jury’s consideration.
	See ECF
No. 116/145 at 3-4.
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 126 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
summary judgment – she merely looked at the facts and legal arguments and
determined that the case could not be resolved absent a trial where a jury would
listen 	to 	Plaintiffs’ 	and 	Defendants’ 	view 	of 	the 	facts, 	hear 	the 	Court’s 	legal
instructions, and decide the case on its merits. Because judgment never entered and
so there is nothing to alter, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to do so.
The Court also declines to reconsider its decision to accept the recommendation
denying summary judgment. The First Circuit has cautioned that granting a motion
for reconsideration is
‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.’ 	Unless the
court has misapprehended some material fact or point of law, such a
motion is normally not a promising vehicle for revisiting a party’s case
and rearguing theories previously advanced and rejected. 	To obtain
relief, the movant must demonstrate either that newly discovered
evidence 	(not 	previously 	available) 	has 	come 	to 	light 	or 	that 	the
rendering court committed a manifest error of law.
Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations omitted)
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its Order adopting the R&R
because it was brief and did not address each of their objections. However, “Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) explicitly says that district courts are ‘not required to
state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56.’”
Barry v.
Moran, 661 F.3d 696, 702 n.9 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(3));
see also
Zayas v. Bacardi Corp., 524 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2008);
Grossman v. Berman, 241
F.3d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 2001).
The Court reviewed the record underlying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, Defendants’ objection, and the R&R. The R&R thoroughly explained why
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 126 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
summary judgment was not proper considering the standard of review, identified the
disputed evidence and accurately stated the correct legal elements. 	The order
adopting the R&R was brief because the Court found that it was supported by the
facts and consistent with the law. 	Because that is all the rules require and, in any
event, the R&R provided both parties with a thorough explanation of the summary
judgment decision, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter/Reconsider. 	ECF
No. 116/145.
II. 	REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO AMEND
Ms. Ware was dismissed as a plaintiff from this consolidated case when the
Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings finding that her
claims failed because her only allegation was that she was present when Mr. Mello
was subject to excessive force.
	Mello v. Gustafson, C.A. No. 23-480-JJM, 2025 WL
2083739, at *2-5 (D.R.I. July 23, 2025),
adopted by text order, (D.R.I. Aug. 28, 2025).
But the Court allowed her to move to amend her complaint, which is currently before
the Court. 	In her motion, she proposes adding an allegation that Defendants
subjected her to intentional non-consensual physical contact by Officer Arruda as he
was arresting Mr. Mello. 	Defendants object to her proposed amendment, arguing
that it is futile because any contact was minimal, incidental, and unintentional. They
also argue that allowing amendment now would be prejudicial because it adds facts
that have not been a part of discovery which is now closed and case deadlines have
long expired. The Court referred the Motion to Amend to the Magistrate Judge who
issued an R&R. ECF No. 117/146. Plaintiffs objected to the R&R. ECF No. 119/148.
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 126 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The Court has reviewed the motion in its entirety, as well as the R&R, and
objection, and concludes that it should accept the R&R in total and deny the Plaintiffs’
Motion to Amend. 	The Magistrate Judge addressed several of Plaintiffs’ objections
in the R&R but held that the Court should not allow the Plaintiffs to amend because
of her delay in seeking to amend was without just cause and would result in prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed the motion one year and eight months after the deadline; Plaintiffs
blame Defendants for the delay, but the R&R correctly concluded that the delay was
all on Plaintiffs. Significantly, the R&R notes that if Ms. Ware was pushed or grabbed
during the event as she wants to now allege, she knew about that contact since the
event 	occurred. 	Because 	she 	could 	have 	asserted 	these 	allegations 	from 	the
beginning, there is no good cause for her failure to do so until this late point in the
litigation when discovery has closed, dispositive motions have been filed, and the case
is ready for trial. Therefore, according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), this delay was undue;
moreover, prejudice to Defendants is inevitable because discovery would have to be
reopened and the resolution of this case would be further delayed. 	Therefore, the
Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion and adopts its reasoning. 	The Court
DENIES Ms. Ware’s Motion for Leave to Amend. ECF No. 107/136.
The R&R also notes that the proposed amendment sought to revive Mr. Mello’s
Heck-barred claims because it restates all of his dismissed allegations about alleged
perjury and other issues during his criminal trial. 	It also seeks to rejoin other
individuals as defendants who have been dismissed. The Court has dismissed these
claims and so adopts the R&R’s reasoning and orders that all claims by Mr. Mello
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 126 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
that are
Heck-barred that he has raised before are dismissed without prejudice unless
and until his conviction is overturned.3
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter Judgment and/or to Reconsider
the Court’s adoption of the R&R denying their Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
No. 116/145. The Court adopts the R&R denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. ECF
No. 117/146. 	The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend. 	ECF No.
107/136.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
January 23, 2026
3 Plaintiffs filed a Request for Judicial Notice that includes information about
Mr. Mello’s state court proceedings, presumably as he believes are related to his
claims here. ECF No. /124. It is unclear how Mr. Mello’s assertions of his perceived
abnormalities in how his state court charges are proceeding effects the disposition of
this case, but he is correct that this Court has no role whatsoever in making factual
or legal determinations about that case.
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 126 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>