United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAGE KELLEY, Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff, Michael John Mazzeo (also identified as Mazzeo
Unum), filed a pro se complaint with an Application
to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and
Costs. This action was randomly assigned to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to the District Court's Program
for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges.
Background and Procedural History
Michael John Mazzeo ("Mazzeo-Unum") filed a
complaint that is written on pre-printed forms for filing
complaints pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
and employment discrimination based upon age. See Docket #1.
Mazzeo-Unum lists a home address in Scranton Pennsylvania,
and names as defendants (1) the United States Department of
Justice; (2) the United States Department of Education; (3)
Southern Berkshire District Court; and (4) the Supreme Court
of the State of New York. Id. at Â¶Â¶ 2, 3. The case
caption identifies the Central Berkshire District Court as a
defendant. Id . The Court notes that the factual
allegations consist primarily of references to (1)
plaintiff's exhibits; (2) various statutes and laws; and
(3) incoherent statements. Id . The extensive
exhibits consist of letters and documents regarding other
lawsuits; photocopied excerpts from publications; and
hand-written documents. See Docket No. 2.
the complaint and motion to proceed in forma
pauperis refer to the plaintiff as "Mazzeo Unum, et
al." and "the General Public, et al., " many
of the accompanying exhibits name many other individuals with
the surname of Mazzeo-Unum [Bruno, Giovanni, Michel, Ariel,
Samantha, Giovavia, Christian, Antonio, Toro] and it is
unclear whether these are alternate names for a single
person, or whether the documents concern multiple individuals
Court's records indicate a lawsuit was filed in the
District of Massachusetts ten years ago by a plaintiff named
Michael Bruno Mazzeo-Unum. See Mazzeo-Unum v. Continental
Casualty Company Inc, et al., C.A. No. 06-10934-MAP (4 (m)
dismissal Oct. 30, 2006). A cursory comparison of the
pleadings filed in 2006 with those filed in the instant
action leads this Court to conclude that they
were both filed by the same person.
to a search of the federal Judiciary's Public Access to
Court Electronic Records (PACER) service, the Court
discovered that a litigant named Bruno Mazzeo Unum has been a
prolific litigant in other federal courts. See e.g.
Mazzeo-Unum v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 11-cv-983 GLS/RFT, 2011
WL 55554364 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011) report and recommendation
adopted sub nom. Unum v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 11-cv-983 GLS/RFT,
2011 WL 5554310 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2011); Mazzeo-Unum v.
Dep't of Transp., No. 12-cv-1856, 2012 WL 2636159
(N.D.N.Y. June 12, 2013); Unum ex rel. Neuro-Med. Diagnostic
Care Servs. P.C. v. Dep't of Transitional Assistance, No.
13-cv-1593 MAD/ATB, 2014 WL 1572799 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2014);
and Mazzeo-Unum v. Expert Witness, et al., No. 15-cv-364 HEA
(E.D. Mo. Feb. 27, 2015).
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
upon review of plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, the Court concludes that
plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of funds to prepay the
filing fee. His sole source of income is from Social Security
benefits. The Court therefore will grant the motion.
plaintiff has sought to proceed without the prepayment of the
filing fee, the matter is subject to review to determine if
it satisfies the requirements of section 1915 of Title 28,
the federal in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C.
Â§ 1915. This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a
complaint if the claims are frivolous, malicious, fail to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2).
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to
formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible
manner. At a minimum, to state a claim for relief a complaint
must include "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must "give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests." Calvi v. Knox
County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting
Educadores PuertorriqueÃ±os en AcciÃ³n v. HernÃ¡ndez,
367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)).
examining the sufficiency of the complaint, the court
considers whether the plaintiff has pled "enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable