Vose v. City of Pawtucket et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
CARLTON VOSE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW
)
CITY OF PAWTUCKET, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
CORRECTED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY1
The court denies a plaintiff’s motion to stay litigation because he has failed to
demonstrate a hardship or inequity in being required to go forward and because a
stay will prejudice non-moving parties.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On April 21, 2025, Carlton Vose, acting pro se, filed a complaint in this court
on his own behalf and on behalf of the beneficiaries of Pauline Vose against seventy-
nine defendants, claiming that the defendants have operated as a criminal enterprise,
have maliciously prosecuted him for his advocacy against corruption, including
judicial corruption, in the state of Rhode Island and that their unchecked corruption
resulted in the kidnapping and murder of his mother, Pauline Vose. Compl. at 1-77
(ECF No. 1). On July 21, 2025, Mr. Vose filed an amended complaint. First Amended
1 	On February 9, 2026, the Court issued an order, docketed on February 10, 2026, on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Stay. Order on Pl.’s Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 120). In the order, the Court referred to Mr.
Vose’s state conviction for elder neglect and inappropriately used elder neglect and elder abuse
interchangeably. See id. at 4, 5, 10. Mr. Vose properly alerted the Court to its imprecise use of the
terms, which are not interchangeable, and asked the Court to issue an amended order, correcting its
mistake. Rule 60 Mot. to Correct Order (ECF No. 123). This is the corrected order.
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Compl. (ECF No. 16). 	Then on August 6, 2025, Mr. Vose filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint, Mot. for Leave to Submit Second Amended Compl.
(ECF No. 19), but he attached a document entitled First Amended Complaint. 	Id.
Attach. 1, First Amended Compl. On August 22, 2025, the motion to amend complaint
was granted, Text Order, and the same day, Mr. Vose filed a document entitled First
Amended Complaint. First Amended Compl. (ECF No. 34). Then, on September 12,
2025, Mr. Vose filed a document entitled Second Amended Complaint. 	Second
Amended Compl. (ECF No. 48). 	On October 22, 2025, Mr. Vose filed a motion for
leave to file third amended complaint, Mot. for Leave to Submit Third Amended
Compl. (ECF No. 77) (Pl.’s Mot. to Am.), and he attached a document entitled Third
Amended Complaint to his motion. Id., Attach. 1, Third Amended Compl.2
On October 12, 2025, Mr. Vose moved to stay these proceedings, Mot. to Stay
Proceedings (ECF No. 72) (Pl.’s Mot. to Stay), and filed an affidavit sworn to by Mr.
Vose in support of the motion. Id. Attach. 1, Pl.’s Verified Aff. in Support of Mot. to
Stay Proceedings (Vose Aff.). 	On October 16, 2025, the Municipal Defendants3
objected to Mr. Vose’s motion to stay. Mun. Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Stay Proceedings
(ECF 72) (ECF No. 73) (Mun. Defs.’ Obj.). On October 24, 2025, the State Defendants4
2 	The Court has under advisement Mr. Vose’s motion to amend his complaint a third time;
several defendants have objected to that motion.
3 	The Municipal Defendants are city of Pawtucket, Donald Grebien, Tina Goncalves, Paul King,
Christopher Dupont, Hans L. Cute, William McCaughey, Kelly A. Boily, Craig S. Letourneau, Jess
Venturini, Mary L. Moran, Irina Gorman, in her capacity as Treasurer of the city of Pawtucket, and
Hon. Christine McBurney. Mun. Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Stay Proceedings (ECF 72) at 1 (ECF No.
73).
4 	The State Defendants are Peter F. Kilmartin, Patricia K. Rocha, Gerald Coyne, Debra A.
Saunders, Barbara L. Margolis, Peter A. DiBiase, Michael A. Ursillo, William Conley, Maria J.R.
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
objected to Mr. Vose’s motion to stay. State Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Stay Proceedings
(ECF No. 79) (State Defs.’ Obj.). 	On October 27, 2025, Defendant Paula M. Cuculo
objected to Mr. Vose’s motion to stay. 	Def., Paula M. Cuculo’s Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to
Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 72) (ECF No. 83) (Cuculo Obj.). 	On October 27, 2025,
Defendant Thomas J. Liguori objected to Mr. Vose’s motion to stay. 	Obj. of the Def.
Thomas J. Liguori, Jr. to the Pl.’s Mot. to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 84) (Liguori
Obj.).
Mr. Vose did not file a reply to these oppositions.
II. 	THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. 	Carlton Vose’s Position
Mr. Vose moves for a stay of the proceedings “pursuant [to] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
due to failure of the state superior (where several Defendants work) to cooperate with
the Plaintiff; or based on this Court’s inherent authority to control the progress of a
case before it.” Pl.’s Mot. to Stay at 1. Mr. Vose explains that he has been trying to
gain access to the state case files for the theft and obstruction cases (P2-2018-0354A
and P3-201602655A), which were located in the Providence superior court. 	Id. 	Mr.
Vose says that he needs these filed to proceed with his lawsuit. Id. Mr. Vose mentions
Goncalves, Suzanne Augenstein, Charles J. Fogarty, Jr., Peter B. Graham, Lise Iwon, Peter F.
Neronha, Stephen G. Dambruch, Diane Daigle, Suzette I. Pintard, Molly Kapstein Cote née Molly
Bronitsky, Martha Crippen, Virginia M. McGinn, Karen Enright, Mickaela Driscoll, Maureen
McKenna Goldberg, Paul A. Suttell, William P. Robinson, III, Gilbert V. Indeglia, Francis X. Flaherty,
Melissa A. Long, Erin Lynch Prata, David D. Curtin, Kerry R. Travers, Jeanne E. LaFazia,
Christopher K. Smith, Joseph A. Montalbano, Anthony F. Amalfetano, Gayle Wolf, Karen DelPonte,
Donna M. Di Donato, Francis Flanagan, Ann S. Gooding, J. Scott Kilpatrick, Maria Q. Lawrence,
Raffaele R. Liguori, Eric B. Mack, and Melanie K. Luker née Melanie K. St. Angelo in their individual
capacities. State Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Submit Third Amended Compl. at 1 n.2 (ECF No.
80). The State Defendants clarified that Patricia K. Rocha is represented in her individual capacity
as a member of the state of Rhode Island Judiciary Committee on Character and Fitness only but not
as to other claims against her and defendants Joseph Marion and Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
that he was required to file the wrongful death claim by April 30, 2025 due to a statute
of limitations issue, but he did not have access to these two case files because the
Providence superior court had refused to grant him access. 	Id. at 1-2. 	Mr. Vose
believes that this absence of evidence is why he has been subject to motions to
dismiss. Id. Mr. Vose then documents his efforts to obtain the documents. Id. at 2-
3. Mr. Vose says that he has suffered “extreme prejudice” from the State Defendants’
withholding of these documents in that he has been unable to provide more detailed
allegations in his complaint. Id. at 3.
In addition, Mr. Vose observes that the city of Pawtucket has argued in its
motion to dismiss his complaint that to allow his lawsuit to move forward would call
into question the validity of his conviction for elder neglect in state case number P2-
2016-2326A. Id. But Mr. Vose writes that “the validity of the conviction has already
been overruled by this Court in its Judgment dated 09/05/2024 in 1:23-cv-84.” Id. at
4.
Mr. Vose also maintains that a stay of the proceedings may be appropriate for
two reasons: “(1) to allow the Plaintiff’s state postconviction proceedings to play out,
and (2) to allow the state court to enforce this Court’s Judgment in his habeas corpus
case at 1:23-cv-84, in the same state postconviction proceedings.” Id. Mr. Vose says
that he currently has a motion to vacate his conviction pending before Joseph A.
Montelbano, 	who 	is 	a 	Providence, 	Rhode 	Island 	Superior 	Court 	judge 	and 	a
codefendant in this case. 	Id. at 5; see Second Amended Compl. ¶ 43. 	Mr. Vose
suggests that the Court can await the outcome of the state postconviction relief case,
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
and he could add a malicious prosecution count for the criminal charge of elder
neglect, “saving everyone involved an enormous amount of cost and effort.” Pl.’s Mot.
to Stay at 5.
Mr. Vose reviews the background of his state criminal case in which he was
apparently convicted of elder neglect. 	Id. at 6-8. First, Mr. Vose criticizes his state
court conviction, saying there was no evidence that his actions met the statutory
definition of neglect necessary for an elder neglect conviction. Id. at 6. Next, he says
that even though the state supreme court agreed with him that there was no evidence
of neglect, they rejected the statutory definition and rewrote the statute using the
dictionary definition of neglect. Id. Mr. Vose turns to his petition for writ of habeas
corpus in this Court and he says that this Court decided that the state prosecution
had been required to prove the statutory definition of neglect, “thus the state supreme
court decision upholding the conviction has already been overruled by this Court.”
Id. at 7. From these conclusions, Mr. Vose maintains that “vacation of the convictions
and dismissal of the charges with prejudice is warranted.” 	Id. 	Mr. Vose concludes
that “the validity of the convictions has been overturned by this Court’s Judgment
dated 09/05/2024 in case 1:23-cv-84”, and he is assured that the state superior court
will vacate his elder neglect conviction. Id. at 8.
Mr. Vose requests that this Court temporarily stay these proceedings until the
state case files can be located and he has reviewed them. Id.
B. 	The Municipal Defendants’ Objection
In their objection, the Municipal Defendants first observe that Mr. Vose cites
“no action or inaction by any Municipal Defendants that supports the drastic action
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
sought.” 	Mun. Defs.’ Obj. at 1. 	Next, the Municipal Defendants contend that Rule
375 is not applicable to this case and not to any Municipal Defendant. 	Id. 	Finally,
they argue that Mr. Vose has “not come close” to providing a valid reason to stay this
lawsuit. Id.
C. 	The State Defendants’ Objection
The State Defendants maintain that the Court should deny the motion to stay
“because the Motion is baseless and would unnecessarily and improperly delay the
resolution of this frivolous lawsuit.” 	State Defs.’ Obj. at 1. 	The State Defendants
worry that Mr. Vose is seeking to engage in a “fishing expedition” in search of facts
that will help substantiate his frivolous causes of action. Id. at 3. Furthermore, the
State Defendants point out that Mr. Vose has failed “to address what information he
seeks in the court files or how it will allegedly change the outcome of this case.” Id.
The State Defendants observe that Mr. Vose’s state convictions for theft and
obstruction dated back to 2018 and 2016 and were closed in 2024. 	Id. at 4. 	They
point out that Mr. Vose had years to obtain any documents he believed were relevant,
and moreover as a party, he “is particularly situated to have access to these records
and knowledge of the cases.” Id. The State Defendants accuse Mr. Vose of having “a
history of hastily filing lawsuits on the eve of the running of a statute of limitations
and [then] trying to delay the litigation afterwards while he attempts to put the pieces
together.” Id.
5 	The Municipal Defendants miscite the rule as Rule 27, but they describe its title as “Failure
to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions,” which is the title for Rule 37. See FED.
R. C IV. P. 37. Furthermore, Mr. Vose did not cite Rule 27; he cited Rule 37. See Pl.’s Mot. to Stay at 1.
The Court is satisfied that the Municipal Defendants’ reference to Rule 27 is a typographical error.
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Regarding his malicious prosecution claim, the State Defendants note that Mr.
Vose himself acknowledges that his criminal case has not yet been dismissed, so one
of the elements of a malicious prosecution claim has not been met by his own
admission. Id. at 5.
The State Defendants view Mr. Vose’s arguments against his state conviction
as an “inappropriate avenue” to do so. 	Id. They also say that Mr. Vose has
inaccurately characterized the result of his federal habeas petition. Id.
Finally, the State Defendants argue that Mr. Vose’s invocation of Rule 37 is
inapplicable because Rule 37 is a rule of discovery, and the parties have not yet
engaged in discovery. Id. at 6.
D. 	Paula M. Cuculo’s Opposition
In Paula Cuculo’s opposition, she points out that Mr. Vose cites “no action or
inaction by defendant, Paula M. Cuculo, that supports the drastic action sought and
his complaints appear to be with other defendants.” Cuculo Opp’n at 1. Ms. Cuculo
also notes that Rule 37 is not applicable because “no discovery or disclosures have
been filed.” 	Id. 	Finally, she observes that she has filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and staying the case would only delay its resolution. Id.
E. 	Thomas J. Liguori, Jr.’s Opposition
Thomas Liguori objects to Mr. Vose’s motion to stay because he contends it
would cause him prejudicial delay, because Mr. Vose’s motion is not justified by any
potential hardship or inequity, because judicial economy weighs in favor of denying
a stay, and because his motion is grounded on Rule 37, which is not applicable to this
case as yet. Liguori Opp’n at 1.
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Regarding prejudice, Mr. Liguori observes that Mr. Vose’s motion “cites to no
action or inaction by the Defendant that would support the extraordinary relief
sought.” 	Id. at 2. 	Thus, Mr. Liguori says that the requested stay would greatly
prejudice him because the stay, as requested, would be for an unspecified period and
would be based on matters entirely outside his control, thus resulting in “otherwise
unnecessary costs and extended emotional investment by the Defendant.” Id.
Mr. Liguori next argues that Mr. Vose’s contention that he has failed to put
enough information in his amended complaint to survive a motion to dismiss must
mean that he has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rules 8 and 11. Id. Like the
State Defendants, Mr. Liguori dismisses Mr. Vose’s professed need for information
and materials, saying that he could have gotten them long before filing his federal
lawsuit. Id.
Mr. Liguori urges the Court to proceed with the case, which in his view could
be handled in the ordinary course. Id. at 3.
Finally, Mr. Liguori makes the same point about Rule 37 that other parties
have made. Id.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Am. Sales Co., LLC v. Warner Chilcott
Pub. Ltd., C.A. No. 13-347 S, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110436, at *3 (D.R.I. Aug. 6,
2013) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). The party seeking
a stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work
damage to someone else.” 	Id. at *3 (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 355). 	Whether to
stay litigation pending resolution of parallel proceedings is committed to this Court’s
“sound discretion.” Metrom Rail, LLC v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., No. 25-cv-11446-
ADB, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 252856, at *17 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025) (citation omitted).
“Of course, stays cannot be cavalierly dispensed: there must be good cause for
their issuance; they must be reasonable in duration; and the court must ensure that
competing equities are weighed and balanced.” Lowe v. Mills, No. 1:21-cv-00242-JDL,
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149724, at *3 (D. Me. Aug. 25, 2023) (quoting Marquis v. FDIC,
965 F.2d 1148, 1155 (1st Cir. 1992)). 	In general, “in evaluating whether to issue a
stay, a court will consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving
party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party without a stay; and (3) judicial
economy.” 	United States of Am. F/B/O Nucor Insulated 	Panel Grp. LLC v.
Controlled Env’t Sys. LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00010-SDN, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158249,
at *3 (D. Me. Aug. 15, 2025) (quoting Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132,
134 (D. Me. 2009)).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
Applying applicable legal standards to Mr. Vose’s motion to stay, the Court
concludes that he has not met his burden to “make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward.” Am. Sales, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110436
at *3. 	First, Mr. Vose does not propose a date certain when the stay would expire.
Instead, he argues the stay should be imposed until he obtains the case files from the
state superior court, until his state postconviction proceedings play out, and until the
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
state courts vacate his conviction for elder neglect, none of which has a clear endpoint.
Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether the stay, if ordered, will be
“reasonable in duration” because Mr. Vose does not suggest a realistic end to his
proposed stay. Lowe, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149724, at *3.
Next, Mr. Vose’s proposed stay imposes a significant hardship on many of the
non-movants. 	Several defendants here have filed motions to dismiss his complaint.
See Mun. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 65); Def. Paula Cuculo’s Mot. to Dismiss
(ECF No. 66); Fed. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 76); Defs. Patricia K. Rocha, in
her Individual Capacity, Joseph R. Marion III, and Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.’s
Mot. to Dismiss the Second Amended Compl. (ECF No. 91). 	These motions are now
ready for decision. 	Although Mr. Vose argues that a stay will allow him to present
more detail in his complaint to enable him to withstand the motions to dismiss, the
Court is not convinced that his proposed delay will alter the Court’s evaluation of the
merits of the motions to dismiss. At the same time, the Court concludes that it would
work a hardship on the defendants who have moved to dismiss to deny them a timely
ruling on their motions.
Third, Mr. Vose’s expectations of favorable rulings from the state court appear
overly sanguine, and his characterizations of court rulings are inconsistent with the
Court’s reading of those cases. 	This is true of both his interpretation of the Rhode
Island state court decisions, see State v. Vose, 287 A.3d 997 (R.I. 2023), Vose v. State,
C.A. No. PM-2024-2024-5350, 2025 R.I. Super. LEXIS 80 (Sup. Ct. R.I. Sept. 23,
2025), and the federal court decision. See Vose v. Dwyer, No. 1:23-cv-00084-JJM-PAS,
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
Order (ECF No. 63). For example, Mr. Vose’s contention that the Court should grant
his motion to stay because he will likely convince state courts to vacate his criminal
convictions seems more a hope than an eventuality and is not a convincing reason to
delay resolution of this lawsuit.
In sum, the Court concludes that Mr. Vose has failed to meet his burden to
demonstrate that the criteria for the granting of a stay apply here.
V. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Carlton Vose’s Motion to Stay
Proceedings (ECF No. 72).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of February, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00168-JAW-KFW Document 126 Filed 02/13/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID
#: <pageID>