United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
DANIEL P. CONNOLLY, Plaintiff,
SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS, INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge
reasons set forth below, the Court (1) allows the
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis;
and (2) directs the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
September 12, 2017, pro se litigant Daniel P.
Connolly filed a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. He names one defendant--his
former employer Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.
(“Shaw's”). His brief statement of the claim
is as follows: “I was wrongly dismissed from my
position without a hearing that I requested in writing. When
the company received my receiving records, Shaw's
Supermarkets found everything in order.” Compl. at 4.
January 12, 2018, the Clerk received a letter in which
Connolly stated that he wanted to submit his entire case
filed at the office of the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination (“MCAD”). Connolly requests advice in
obtaining these records and asks if the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has a copy of
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court concludes that the plaintiff has adequately shown
that he is without means to prepay the $400.00 filing fee.
The Court therefore allows the motion.
Screening of the Complaint
the 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 frivolous, malicious,
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
complaint because the plaintiff is proceeding pro
se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
state a claim for relief, a complaint must, in compliance
with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In other words, the
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what
the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Calvi v. Knox County, 470
F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores
Puertorriqueños en Acción v.
Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)). This
means that the statement of the claim must “at least
set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when,
where, and why.” Id. (quoting
Educadores, 367 F.3d at 68). Although the
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) are minimal, “minimal
requirements are not tantamount to nonexistent
requirements.” Id. (quoting Gooley v.
Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir. 1988)).
Further, “only a complaint that states a
plausible claim for relief” states a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (emphasis added). “Where the
well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, ” the complaint
does not show that “the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Id. (quoting Fed. R Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
in second quotation).
Connolly's complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. While his allegations provide some
information about his claim, he has not “set forth
minimal facts as to who did what to whom [and] when.”
Connolly must file an amended complaint that follow the
instruction of the form complaint he used: “State how
each defendant was involved and what each defendant did that
caused the plaintiff harm or violated the plaintiff's
rights, including the dates and places of that involvement or
conduct.” Compl. at 4.
Insufficient Allegations of ...