United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Talwani, United States District Judge.
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.
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
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.
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
The Second Amended Complaint
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.
Second Amended Complaint describes seven administrative
complaints filed by Plaintiff.
Martin v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Second Amended Complaint does not assert claims
against the BHA Legal Department. Id.
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.
Martin v. Boston Fair ...