United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. SARIS CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
with respect to his landlord, Fennick contends he has
threatened to evict him if he continued to contact
"members of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
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).
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.
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.
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.
The Pre-Filing Injunction Is Not Applicable To This
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.
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
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
The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
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
Screening of the Complaint
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).
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 ...