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.

Fennick v. Allesandro

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

June 10, 2016

KEVIN FENNICK, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERTO ALLESANDRO, ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          PATTI B. SARIS CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On May 25, 2016, plaintiff Kevin Fennick ("Fennick"), a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, filed a self-prepared complaint against his landlord, Robert Allesandro, and the resident property manager, Liston Callwood. Fennick alleges that there is an on-going issue that he has brought to the Boston Housing Court ("BHC") on several occasions; however, the BHC has rejected his case notwithstanding that Inspectional Services has found numerous housing violations.

         The matter appears to stem from poor conditions of the apartment building along with complaints about other tenants disturbing the peace by playing of loud music, partying into the early morning hours, fighting, and arguing. He also complains that the tenants above his apartment have caused flooding, which, in turn, has caused his ceiling to collapse many times, damaging his personal property. With respect to defendant Callwood, Fennick contends that he "appears to be using the tenants to conduct an action of disturbing the peace to annoy in hope of getting my family and myself to move out." Compl. at ¶ 3. Fennick further claims that the defendant Callwood is "placing barrows [sic] into a parking space that he uses and despite having been warned by Inspectional Services . . . ." Id. at ¶ 4.

         Next, with respect to his landlord, Fennick contends he has threatened to evict him if he continued to contact "members of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Id.

         Along with the complaint, Fennick filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 3) and an ex parte "First Amending Emergency Motion of Probable Cause" (Docket No. 2).

         On June 3, 2016, Fennick filed a motion entitled "Emergency Motion to Amend Mirna Leonardo and a State Polygraph for Defendants Mirna Leonardo Liston Callwood All in Compliance To the Rules U.S. Federal Court" (Docket No. 5). In that motion, Fennick alleges he seeks emergency relief based on discrimination (national origin), harassment, disturbing the peace and gross negligence by the defendants. He notes that a separate complaint has been filed with the Fair Housing Commission and the Boston Housing for Inspectional Services. He further claims that Inspectional Services has taken defendant Allesandro to Housing Court. He again alleges that his landlord has threatened to evict him and to charge him with trespassing should he make any further reports to anyone in state government. He also alleges that defendant Callwood does not like black people.

         Additionally, Fennick complains about the problems caused by trash bags near the premises, as well as other adverse conditions that have not been rectified. Further, he claims that the manager (Callwood) threatened to call the Mayor's office about him, probably to have him evicted since his landlord was unable to do so. Fennick asks this Court to conduct a polygraph test before summoning the defendants to a hearing.

         On June 6, 2016, Fennick filed an "Emergency Motion to Amend Suzanne Caravaggio and Margaret Rubino" (Docket No. 8). In that motion, Fennick claims he has filed a complaint against three defendants: Robert Allesandro, Liston Callwood, and Mirna Leonardo and now seeks to amend the complaint to include claims against Suzanne Caravaggio and Margaret Rubino from the Law Office of Rananelli and Kittredge. He alleges that the defendants were involved in a civil conspiracy that involved discrimination, fraud, negligence, trespassing on-line, and a cover-up.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. The Pre-Filing Injunction Is Not Applicable To This Action

         Fennick is an enjoined litigant in this Court because he has filed a number of frivolous and/or vexatious lawsuits. See Fennick v. Kittredge, et al., Civil Action No. 12-10866-DPW; Fennick v. Judge Sanders, et al., Civil Action No. 09-10377-MLW; and Fennick v. Newbury Jr. College, et al., Civil Action No. 06-10240-WGY. In brief, the pre-filing injunction prohibits Fennick from filing any further pleadings pro se, seeking to assert claims against Trooper Staco, the state courts, state judges or any other parties that relate to his claims against Trooper Staco. Further, Fennick is prohibited from asserting claims of criminal or civil conspiracy, treason, or any other claims against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (including its agencies or instrumentalities, or its employees or state judges), or against the United States, United States Congressmen, the United States House of Representatives, the FBI, or other federal employees, including federal judges, unless his submission is accompanied by an affidavit of a duly-licensed attorney averring that the pleading contains a claim upon which relief may be granted, is not barred by claim preclusion, and is not repetitive of prior lawsuits filed by Fennick.

         In this case, Fennick has submitted copies of the orders enjoining him, presumably in an effort to obtain this Court's permission to file his complaint against his landlord and property manager.

         This Court determines that the claims made in this action are not related to his prior lawsuits or fall within the purview of the pre-filing injunction. Thus, the filing of this action is permitted.

         B. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Upon review of Fennick's financial disclosures, this Court finds that he lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing and administrative fees of the Court. Accordingly, his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 3) is ALLOWED.

         C. Screening of the Complaint

         Because Fennick is plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         In addition to the statutory screening requirements under § 1915, this Court has an independent obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its own subject matter jurisdiction. McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Because Fennick is proceeding pro se, this Court liberally construes his complaint. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 ...


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.