United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENNIS SAYLOR IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons stated below, the Court will (1) grant
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis; and (2) direct plaintiff to show cause why
this action should not be dismissed for lack of
Yin, who is proceeding pro se, has filed an action
in which he alleges that his former employer, defendant
Thermo Fisher Scientific, is liable for defamation and
retaliation. According to the complaint, Yin “was a
team leader in Thermo Fisher, when the site closure [occurred
and] all [the] team member[s] had been laid off.”
(Compl. at 4). It alleges that before the layoff, Thermo
Fisher had awarded him “a reward as outstanding
employee to honor [his] service to ThermoFisher.”
(Id.). It further alleges that “[h]owever,
recently, [he has] found out that ThermoFisher had spread out
a set of documents entitled Lei Yin's HR files at
ThermoFisher, which [he] had no chance [to] review and never
agree[d] on.” (Id.). It alleges that the
“very negative ‘manipulated' set of documents
hurt [him] deeply.” (Id.).
prayer for relief, Yin asks that his personnel files be
corrected and that he receive $2 million in damages for
defamation and retaliation. He invokes this Court's
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
review of plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court concludes that plaintiff lacks
fund to prepay the filing fee. The Court therefore will grant
Screening of the Complaint
Court's Authority to Screen the
as here, a plaintiff is allowed to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee, summonses will not issue until the court
reviews the complaint and determines that it satisfies the
substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That
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 can be
granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own
subject matter jurisdiction. See McCulloch v. Velez,
364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction, “and the requirement of
subject-matter jurisdiction ‘functions as a restriction
on federal power.'” Fafel v. Dipaola, 399
F.3d 403, 410 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Insurance Corp. of
Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.
694, 702 (1982)). “The existence of subject-matter
jurisdiction ‘is never presumed.'”
Fafel, 399 F.3d at 410 (quoting Viqueira v.
First Bank, 140 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1998)). Rather,
federal courts “must satisfy themselves that
subject-matter jurisdiction has been established.”
Id. “If the court determines at any time that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
conducting the preliminary review of the complaint, the Court
must liberally construes the pleading because Yin is
proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Federal Question ...