United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER June 10, 2016
B. SARIS, Chief 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 Â¶ 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 Â¶ 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).
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.
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.
Pre-Filing Injunction Is Not Applicable To This Action
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
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
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. Â§ 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. Â§ 1915(e)(2).
addition to the statutory screening requirements under Â§
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 (1972). Even
under a liberal construction, however, this action is subject
to dismissal for the reasons set forth below.
Failure to Comply With Rule 8
threshold matter, Fennick's complaint fails to comport
with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to include
in the complaint, inter alia, "a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This
statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what
the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,
'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)); see Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d
27, 33 (1st Cir. 2005). It must afford the defendant(s) a
"meaningful opportunity to mount a defense,
'" DÃaz-Rivera v. Rivera-RodrÃguez, 377
F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2004)(quoting RodrÃguez v. Doral
Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)).
"In a civil rights action as in any other ...