Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mazzeo v. Central Berkshire District Court

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

May 16, 2016

MICHAEL JOHN MAZZEO, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL BERKSHIRE DISTRICT COURT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL

          M. PAGE KELLEY, Magistrate Judge.

         The 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.

         I. Background and Procedural History

         Plaintiff 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 ¶¶ 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.[1] See Docket No. 2.

         Although 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 named Mazzeo-Unum.

         The 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[2] leads this Court to conclude that they were both filed by the same person.

         Pursuant 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).

         II. Discussion

         A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Based 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.

         B. Preliminary Screening

         Because 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. § 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. § 1915(e)(2).

         Additionally, 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 Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)).

         When 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.