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.

Loring v. US Government Agency's Organizations

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 26, 2017

LORING VAUGHN, Plaintiff,
v.
US GOVERNMENT AGENCY'S ORGANIZATIONS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          PATTI B. SARIS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         For the reasons stated below, the Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denies without prejudice plaintiff's motion for emergency hearing and protective order. This action shall be dismissed within 35 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order unless plaintiff demonstrates good cause why this action should not be dismissed or files an amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint.

         BACKGROUND

         On July 25, 2017, pro se plaintiff Vaughn Loring (“Loring”) filed a complaint accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff also submitted a one-page motion that the Clerk entered on the docket as a motion for emergency hearing and protective order. The complaint is brought against more than a dozen defendants, including five state court judges, seeking equitable relief for alleged violation of plaintiff's civil rights. Plaintiff alleges that in 2011 he was prosecuted in Attleboro District Court and he contends various state court judges conspired to bring him to trial. Plaintiff alleges that his “residency” was taken from him “by the U.S. government” and without it, he “can't get Insurance because [he is] not a resident.” The complaint seeks to have this Court enroll plaintiff in MassHealth, restore his Massachusetts residency and order the correction of all documents from all involved agencies and organizations. He also asks to be placed into “protective custody considering the severity of the case it involves all government officials.”

         The one-page, emergency motion states that he is permanently disabled and that his application for MassHealth was denied. He contends that his civil rights were violated by the Attleboro District Court. Plaintiff fears for his safety for lack of residency and inability to obtain medical treatment.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff's financial disclosures contained in his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates that he lacks funds to pay the filing fee for this action. Accordingly, his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is hereby ALLOWED.

         2. Screening of the Complaint

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 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. § 1915(e)(2); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

         In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes the complaint because plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The complaint is also construed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”).

         Even under a broad reading of the complaint, however, the Court finds this action is subject to dismissal. As filed, the complaint does not comport with the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) governs the substance of a pleading, and 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).

         Moreover, as the United States Supreme Court has stated, under Rule 8, a plaintiff must plead more than a mere allegation that the defendants have harmed him. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (detailed factual allegations are not required under Rule 8, but a complaint “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). See Chiang v. Skeirik, 582 F.3d 238, 244 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

         In the instant case, plaintiff asserts various complaints, but these are raised collectively against more than a dozen defendants. Plaintiff fails to identify the specific alleged wrongdoings by each defendant which form a legal cause of ...


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.