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.

Barbosa v. Commonwealth

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 22, 2016

RICARDO MIGUEL ZEFERINO BARBOSA, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Defendant.

          Ricardo Miguel Zeferino Barbosa, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ALLISON D. BURROUGHS, District Judge.

         Now before the Court are the plaintiff's amended complaint, addendum to the amended complaint, and motion to further amend the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will limit the scope of the operative pleading to the amended complaint.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Pretrial detainee Ricardo Miguel Zeferino Barbosa ("Barbosa") filed a complaint and supplemental pleadings in which he challenged the fact of his current detention, the amount of bail required for release, the present criminal prosecution against him, and various aspects of his confinement. In separate orders [ECF Nos. 18, 23, 28], the Court directed him to file an amended complaint. The Court held that it could not address the proprietary of his bail because challenges to the fact or duration of confinement had to be raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also held that any interference in a pending criminal prosecution was precluded by the doctrine of Younger abstention and that any claim for malicious prosecution did not exist unless and until the challenged prosecution terminated in the plaintiff's favor. The Court has also explained to him the notice pleading requirement of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirement that claims against multiple defendants arise "out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2)(A).

         The plaintiff has how filed an amended complaint [ECF. No. 31], an "addendum" to the amended complaint [ECF. No. 36], and a motion to further amend his complaint [ECF. No. 38].

         II. DISCUSSION

         Although summonses issued as to the amended complaint on July 6, 2016 [ECF No. 42], [1] the Court may still complete its preliminary screening of the pleading. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) Upon review of the amended complaint, addendum, and the motion to amend, the Court finds that clarification of the scope of the operative pleading is necessary.

         A. Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31]

         The amended complaint contains a narrative of Barbosa's arrest on November 6, 2013, the seizure of his property incident to his arrest, his failed attempts to retrieve this property, his attempts to be released on bail, the loss of his property when he was transferred from a county house of correction to a prison, and complaints about conditions of confinement as a pretrial detainee. The Court reads the amended complaint as setting forth the following three claims:

         1. The loss and/or destruction of property in conjunction with Barbosa's arrest on November 6, 2013. See Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 27[2]

         2. Deficient conditions of confinement while a pretrial detainee in a facility operated by the Department of Correction. See id. ¶ 24.

         3. Deficient conditions of confinement while a pretrial detainee in the Norfolk County Jail. See id. ¶ 25.

         The Court will allow these three claims to go forward except that, to the extent that Barbosa is attempting to bring a claim for malicious prosecution, such claim cannot be maintained for the reasons set forth in the Court's previous orders. The Court will also direct the ...


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.