United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Casper United States District Judge.
Pro se litigant Michael Sullivan
(“Sullivan”) has filed a civil complaint, D. 1,
in which he alleges that Waltham police officers failed to
investigate his reports of criminal activity. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will order that this case be
Sullivan alleges numerous misdeeds by several government
officials and agencies, the crux of his complaint and basis
for seeking relief is as follows. According to his complaint,
on August 8, 2014, Sullivan filed a complaint with Waltham
Police Officer DM Hart (“Officer Hart”), alleging
that the United States was subjecting him to unlawful
surveillance. More specifically, Sullivan claims that he
asked Officer Hart for the Waltham Police Department
“to investigate the United States Air Force hovering a
jet over [his] house in Waltham for 3-5 minutes on two
different occasions at 3:00 am [in the] morning.”
Compl. ¶ 5. Sullivan also reported to Officer Hart that
“the FBI contacted everybody [he] ever knew to tell
them what to say to [him]” and conducted constant
physiological war on him. Id. ¶ 8.
alleges that, instead of investigating his complaint, Officer
Hart wrote a police report in which she describes the
plaintiff's mental state, characterizing him as being in
a “fragile state” and demonstrating
“significantly paranoid behavior.” Id.
¶ 10. Sullivan takes issue with Officer Hart's
evaluation of his mental health, and worries that the report
“could be used against [him] if [he has] another
encounter with local police and then the FBI can force them
to write another complaint implying that [he is] mentally
imbalance to have [him] institutionalized.”
Id. ¶ 11. The report was purportedly reviewed
by Officer A. Mele and approved by Officer J. Giugno, both of
the Waltham Police Department.
concludes, “The Police did not investigate my complaint
against the FBI, instead they assisted the FBI by writing a
false police report inferring I had mental health
issues.” Id. ¶ 2. He claims that Officers
Hart, Mele and Giulgno, the defendants in this action,
violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983,
and 1986, as well as his Eighth Amendment right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment.
the complaint, Sullivan filed an emergency motion, D. 3, in
which he asks that the Court issue a subpoena as to Officer
Hart, who, according to the plaintiff, will testify under
oath that the FBI forced her to falsify the report she wrote
about Sullivan. In a second emergency motion, D. 6, Sullivan
asks that, in light of a head injury he suffered, the Court
appoint counsel for him. He also reiterates his belief that
Officer Hart will testify that the FBI forced her to write a
false report. Sullivan also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
review of Sullivan's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court concludes that he has
adequately demonstrated his inability to pay the $400 filing
fee. Accordingly, the motion will be GRANTED.
Screening of the Complaint
Sullivan is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
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). In
conducting this review, the Court liberally construes the
plaintiff's complaint because he is proceeding pro
se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
Sullivan has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. There is no statutory, common law, or constitutional
right to the investigation of another. See Mitchell v.
McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007); cf. Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A]
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another”). Moreover,
the mere existence of an allegedly false police report does
not deprive a person of a constitutional right, and the
possibility that the police report might be used to
institutionalize Sullivan is too speculative to raise
concerns of a constitutional dimension. See Landrigan v.
City of Warwick, 628 F.2d 736, 744-45 (1st Cir. 1980).
plaintiff, even a pro se plaintiff, has failed to
state a claim and it appearls futile to amend as to such
claim, then a dismissal sua sponte is appropriate.
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31,
36-37 (1st Cir. ...