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.

Martin v. U.S. Department of Housing

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 26, 2016

OLIVIA MARTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Indira Talwani, United States District Judge.

         For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         I. Introduction

         A. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff Olivia Martin commenced this action on August 4, 2014, by filing her Complaint [#1] seeking monetary relief from eight federal state and city agencies for alleged violations of her rights as a public housing tenant since 1999. On November 14, 2014, the court issued Memorandum and Order [#5] informing Martin that her complaint failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court gave Martin an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

         On December 18, 2014, Martin filed her Amended Complaint [#7]. On the same day, Martin manually filed five binders of documents with the court, which she identified as exhibits to her complaint. On May 28, 2015, Martin filed a Motion to Combine [#10], which attached additional documents for the court's review.

         On June 4, 2015, the court issued Order [#11] explaining that Martin's pleadings do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and providing Martin one final opportunity to amend her complaint to state the claims she is seeking to bring for violations of the Fair Housing Act or another federal law. For each claim, Martin was directed to (1) identify the defendant, (2) describe what she believes the defendant did that is the subject of her complaint before this court (that is, what did the defendant do, and when and where did it happen), (3) identify what law she believes the defendant's actions violated, and (4) state what relief she believes she is legally entitled to. Id. Now before the court is Martin's Second Amended Complaint [#17].

         B. The Second Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is directed towards seven of the eight defendants that were identified in Martin's original complaint. See Docket No. 17 (“Sec. Am. Compl.”).1 Martin seeks monetary damages for violations of 18 U.S.C. §241 (conspiracy against rights), §242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), §245 (federally protected activities); 42 U.S.C. §1981 (equal rights under the law), §1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights), §1985 (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights); and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3613 (enforcement by private persons). Id. at 6, 11, 16, 21- 22, 26, 29, and 34 - 35. Martin also asserts several state law claims. Id. Martin seeks appointment of counsel. Id. at 6.

         The Second Amended Complaint describes seven administrative complaints filed by Plaintiff.

         1. Martin v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

         1 The Second Amended Complaint does not assert claims against the BHA Legal Department. Id.

         Martin alleges that on March 16, 2012, she met with Kristen L. Filipic of the Housing and Urban Development and filed a complaint against the Boston Housing Authority. See Sec. Am. Compl. at 3. Later in March, she received a letter from Ms. Filipic and Timothy M. Robison stating that Martin's complaint was being reviewed. Id. The following month, on April 12, 2012, Susan M. Forward referred Martin's complaint to the Boston Fair Housing Commission for investigation. Id. On August 15, 2013, HUD completed its investigation, id., and on August 19, 2013, Martin “left documents with Elizabeth Montaguila for Susan Forward showing that the [HUD determination] was wrong.” Id. at 4. Martin alleges that on December 8, 2014, she filed a new complaint with defendant Robert D. Forti of HUD. Id. at 8. Martin alleges that Filipic, Robinson, Forward, Olga Niese and Victoria L. Williams misrepresented the facts of her case. Id. at 6. She complains that Commissioner Ego Ezedi, Pat Tierney and Dmyon Yong misrepresented the facts and upheld a finding of lack of probable cause. Id. at 2, 5.

         2. Martin v. Boston Fair ...


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.