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
Plaintiffs Joshua Mello and Rachel Ware have filed at least six lawsuits1
arising out of a no-trespass order that barred them from entering Cranston’s Western
Mills Middle School, where Mr. Mello’s daughter was a student, and the Cranston
School Department’s Briggs Administrative Building. The no-trespass order resulted
from Mr. Mello’s criminal conviction for disorderly conduct at his daughter’s school
during school hours and possession of a prohibited weapon (knives). They sued many
1
See federal complaints:
Mello v. Arruda, C.A. No. 23-479;
Mello v. Arruda,
C.A. No. 23-480; and
Mello v. Cranston Sch. District, C.A. No. 24-350; R.I. state court
complaints:
Mello v. Vesey, PC-2022-06458; and
Mello v. Dunton, PC-2024-04818.
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 125 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
individuals, but after motion practice, only Defendant Officers John Rocchio and
Edward Arruda remain. These consolidated cases have been heavily litigated for over
two years and, Plaintiffs have filed many filings, some making claims that are
frivolous and in most cases the Court has rejected or disposed of them. Their pro se
filings have also disparaged, insulted, and hurled accusations at Defendants’ counsel
in many of their filings. 	Both this Court and the Magistrate Judge, who has ably
steered this litigation, have commented on these unprofessional and unnecessary
statements and counseled Plaintiffs to refrain from getting personal.2
As Plaintiffs appear undeterred, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions
against Mr. Mello and Ms. Ware, arguing that Plaintiffs should be sanctioned for
filing frivolous motions that assert unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims resulting
in continued harassment of Defendants and their counsel. 	ECF No. 120/149.3 	In
their motion, Defendants seek various sanctions and future limits on Plaintiffs’ case
filing. The Court starts by reviewing the applicable law on imposing sanctions.
2 In her Report & Recommendation on Ms. Ware’s motion to amend, the
Magistrate Judge observed that Plaintiffs “deploy[ed] a tactic they have used
repeatedly throughout the travel of these cases–inappropriately accusing Defendants’
counsel 	of 	making 	false 	statements 	or 	otherwise 	engaging 	in 	unprofessional
misconduct.”
Mello v. Arruda, C.A. No. 23-479-JJM, C.A. No. 23-480-JJM, 2025 WL
3013322, at *2 (D.R.I. Oct. 28, 2025). 	This Court has also called out Plaintiffs’
unfounded and inflammatory accusations against Defendants’ counsel.
	Mello v.
Arruda, C.A. No. 23-479-JJM-PAS, C.A. No. 23-480-JJM-PAS, 2025 WL 2851758, at
*1 (Oct. 8, 2025) (“The Court has reviewed each of the allegations against the attorney
and finds that they are false. The attorney in question[] has handled this case
professionally, competently, and consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct
and the Rules of Civil Procedure.”) (emphasis added).
3 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.
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 125 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
“Rule 11 permits a court to impose sanctions on a party or lawyer for
advocating a frivolous position, pursuing an unfounded claim, or filing a lawsuit for
some improper purpose.”
CQ Int’l Co., Inc. v. Rochem Int’l, Inc., USA, 659 F.3d 53, 60
(1st Cir. 2011). 	Rule 11, however, “‘is not a strict liability provision, and a showing
of at least culpable carelessness is required before a violation of the Rule can be
found.’”
Id. (quoting
Citibank Global Mkts., Inc. v. Santana, 573 F.3d 17, 32 (1st Cir.
2009)). To deserve sanctions, “it is not enough that the filer’s claim lacked merit -- it
must be so plainly unmeritorious as to warrant the imposition of sanctions.”
Zell v.
Ricci, 957 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir. 2020) (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs in this case represent themselves. 	“While a
pro se party is not
immune from Rule 11, the court has discretion to take into account the special
circumstances that often arise in pro se situations.”
Marchuk v. Long, No. CV 24-
11129-WGY, 2025 WL 944456, at *1 (D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2025) (citing
Vizvary v.
Vignati, 134 F.R.D. 28, 31 (D.R.I. 1990)). Thus, “the objective standard to be applied
regarding Rule 11 asks what a reasonable person in the pro se litigant’s position
would have done.”
Id. (citation omitted). In deciding whether sanctions are merited,
the Court may consider
‘[1][w]hether the improper conduct was willful, or negligent; [2] whether
it was part of a pattern or activity, or an isolated event; [3] whether it
infected the entire pleading, or only one particular count or defense; [4]
whether the person has engaged in similar conduct in other litigation;
[5] whether it was intended to injure; [6] what effect it had on the
litigation process in time or expense; [7] whether the responsible person
is trained in the law; [8] what amount, given the financial resources of
the responsible person, is needed to deter that person from repetition in
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 125 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the same case; and [9] what amount is needed to deter similar activity
by other litigants.’
Azubuko v. MBNA Am. Bank, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D. Mass. 2005),
aff’d, 179 F. App’x
66 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 advisory committee’s note (1993)).
The Court considered the factors and Plaintiffs’ conduct during this case. Their
lack of respectful treatment of Defendants’ counsel will not be tolerated, especially
since this Court has determined in the face of Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants’
counsel has handled this case professionally, competently, and consistent with the
Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Civil Procedure. While Plaintiffs are
not lawyers, the Court expects them to conduct themselves with the same decorum it
expects from licensed attorneys. That said, the Court declines to impose sanctions on
Plaintiffs at this time but any further frivolous or personally disparaging filings will
result in monetary sanctions. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions.
ECF No. 120/149.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
January 23, 2026
Case 1:23-cv-00479-JJM-PAS Document 125 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>