United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. SARIS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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
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.
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
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
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).
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
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).
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
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 ...