United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
IN Re MOTION REQUESTING PERMISSION TO FILE NEW LAWSUIT MOVANT: GERARD D. GRANDOIT
RICHARD G. STEARNS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Gerard D. Grandoit has been deemed an abusive litigant. See
Grandoit v. Staples, C.A. No. No. 10-10299-RGS (Dec.
6, 2012). As a result, he has been enjoined from filing civil
actions in this Court without first obtaining permission from
a judicial officer.
before the Court are Grandoit's motions (1) requesting
permission to file a new lawsuit and (2) to show good cause
for filing a complaint. See Docket Nos. 1 - 2.
Grandoit did not pay the $47 Miscellaneous Business Docket
filing fee or seek waiver thereof. His motions are
accompanied by two proposed complaints seeking equitable and
monetary relief from defendants Roche Insurance Agency
(“Roche”) and Arbella Mutual Insurance Company
(“Arbella”) for statutory and constitutional
violations. Here, Grandoit is proceeding pro se and
as such, his pleadings are entitled to a liberal
construction. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
motion requesting permission to file a new lawsuit, Grandoit
informs the Court of the difficulty he has had in retrieving
files from his computer. See Docket No. 1. He asks
the Court to delay “the process” to provide him
with additional “time to file the rest of the
complaint.” Id. He seeks “leave and
permission to allow [him to file] the recognized claims from
[his] complaint against the Defendants involved.”
Id. In addition to the complaints, Grandoit has
filed addendums, attachments and memoranda in support.
complaints consist primarily of a recounting of events
surrounding his July 2013 purchase of an Arbella car
insurance policy from Roche as well as his subsequent efforts
to have his policy reinstated in 2014 after it was cancelled
due to nonpayment and in 2016 after Arbella terminated its
agency contract with Roche. Grandoit subsequently filed
demand letters to the defendants as well as administrative
and consumer complaints with the Massachusetts Division of
Insurance, Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, the
U.S. Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
request to file a new civil action will be denied. Each
complaint contains from thirty to sixty counts and many of
the numbered counts consist of formulaic recitations of some
of the elements of particular statutes and regulations. The
allegations concerning the alleged termination and/or
reinstatement of Grandoit's insurance policies epitomize
the type of “threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements” found to be insufficient by the Supreme
Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Moreover, because the citizenship of Grandoit and
each of the defendants are not diverse, diversity
jurisdiction under Section 1332 does not exist. Northeast
Federal Credit Union v. Neves, 837 F.2d 531, 533 (1st
Cir. 1988) (vacating and directing district court to dismiss,
no diversity jurisdiction existed); Paparella v. Idreco
Invest., 858 F.Supp. 283, 284 (D. Mass. 1994)
(dismissing). Even if there was diversity of citizenship
between the parties, Grandoit cannot satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement because it appears that he lacks a
reasonable, good faith basis to believe that his recovery
could exceed $75, 000.
extent Grandoit alleges federal constitutional violations,
private conduct is generally beyond the reach of the 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a private right of action
through which plaintiffs may recover against state actors for
constitutional violations. González-Maldonado v.
MMM Healthcare, Inc., 693 F.3d 244, 247-48 (1st Cir.
2012). Moreover, Grandoit offers no factual allegations to
support his bare conclusions that the defendants' actions
extent Grandoit seeks to assert a myriad of claims under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, (1)
defendants are not lenders that provided credit to Grandoit,
and (2) the allegations are insufficient to support a finding
of discrimination under the burden shifting framework set
forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 802 (1973).
on the foregoing, I do not find any good basis to permit
Grandoit to file the proposed complaints and it is hereby
Grandoit's motion (Docket No. 1) requesting permission to
file a new lawsuit is DENIED;
Grandoit's motion (Docket No. 2) to show good cause for
filing a complaint is DENIED; and
clerk is directed to terminate this matter without ...