and outrageous,’ ‘beyond all possible bounds of decency,’ and ‘utterly intolerable in a civilized community’; (iii) the defendants’] conduct proximately caused plaintiffs emotional distress; and (iv) the distress was so ‘severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.’ ” Davignon v. Clemmey, 322 F.3d 1, 8 n.2 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45, 355 N.E.2d 315 (1976)). To the extent that plaintiffs IIED claim is premised on the fact that defendants arrested him, that claim is barred by Heck. Plaintiff cannot now contend that defendants arrested him without probable cause, and the simple fact of an arrest pursuant to probable cause does not give rise to an IIED claim. See Godette v. Stanley, 490 F.Supp.2d 72, 80-81 (D. Mass. 2007) (<HOLDING>). However, to the extent that his IIED claim is
holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest recognizing that warrantless arrests with probable cause do not give rise to  1983 claims holding that possessing property of another for the purpose of security on a debt does not give rise to probable cause to arrest holding that arrest made with probable cause and without excessive force does not give rise to iied claim