United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM G. YOUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons set forth below, the Court directs the plaintiff to
file an amended complaint.
November 30, 2016, pro se litigant Ziad Arafat
Alammani (“Alammani”), who claims that his true
identity is Iscandar Maax, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He names the Norfolk County Correctional
Facility, where he is incarcerated, as the sole defendant.
complaint is sixty-four pages long, most of which consist
only of single-spaced handwritten text. The pleading is
difficult to understand, but the overall thrust appears to be
that the plaintiff is falsely incarcerated because of
mistaken identify. The plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, prisoner complaints in civil actions
that seek redress from a governmental entity or officers or
employees of a governmental entity are also subject to
screening. This statute authorizes a federal court to dismiss
a complaint sua sponte if the claims therein are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In conducting this
review, the Court liberally construes the complaint because
the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Challenge to the Validity of Confinement
Alammani has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. To the extent he challenges the legality of his
conviction and incarceration, he must proceed in habeas
corpus. “Challenges to the validity of any confinement
or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of
habeas corpus . . . .” Muhammad v. Close, 540
U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam); see also Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005) (in a series of Supreme
Court decisions, “the Court has focused on the need to
ensure that state prisoners use only habeas corpus (or
similar state) remedies when they seek to invalidate the
duration of their confinement-either directly
through an injunction compelling speedier release or
indirectly through a judicial determination that
necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State's
custody”). Under federal statute, a litigant must
exhaust available state court remedies before he may seek
habeas corpus relief in a federal court. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b).
Alammani couches his claim as one of mistaken identity and a
request to correct a record to reflect his true identity, at
its heart, the his claim is one challenging the validity of
extent that Alammani plaintiff is not challenging the
validity of his confinement, the plaintiff has failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the
complaint does not meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule
8(a)(2)”). Under this rule, a complaint must include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). At a minimum, the complaint must “give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests.” Calvi v. Knox
County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting
Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v.
Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)).
Although the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) are minimal,
“minimal requirements are not tantamount to nonexistent
requirements.” Id. (quoting Gooley v.
Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir. 1988)).
Alammani has failed to provide a short and plain statement of
his claim. Although the Court can discern within the pleading
the theme of mistaken identity (which, for the reasons stated
above, cannot be raised in federal court in a non-habeas
civil action), the complaint is drafted such that no other
claim is apparent. If the plaintiff is attempting to
additional claims for relief, they ...