United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENNIS SAYLOR IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny without prejudice
the motion for appointment of counsel, deny without prejudice
the motion for discovery, and order the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint within 28 days of the entry of this
memorandum and order.
October 11, 2017, pro se prisoner plaintiff Jeffrey
Britto filed a voluminous complaint against UMass
Correctional Health, Massachusetts Partnership for
Correctional Health, Geri Crisman Rondeau, James Ferriari,
Ellen Kurtz, Thomas Groblewski, MD, Rebecca Lubelczyk,
Herbert Dungo, Maureen Atkins, Stephanie Byron, Dr. Frankie
LNU, Cassandra Wartman, Lawrence Churchville, Lawrence
Weiner, Stephanie Collins, Dyana Nickl, and Cynthia Sumner.
The 35-page complaint is a chronological narrative covering
twenty years of alleged inadequate medical treatment.
Plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants together
under the Eighth Amendment and for medical malpractice.
Attached to the complaint are 98 pages of exhibits. Along
with his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, a motion for appointment of
counsel, and a motion for discovery.
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (and prisoner
account statement) and finds that it is meritorious. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the Court assesses an initial
partial filing fee of $44.85. The remainder of the fee,
$305.15, shall be collected in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of
motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without
prejudice. The Court may request an attorney to represent
plaintiff if it finds that (1) plaintiff is indigent and (2)
exceptional circumstances exist such that the denial of
counsel will result in a fundamental unfairness infringing on
his due-process rights. DesRosiers v. Moran, 949
F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991); 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). While the
plaintiff is indigent, the motion for appointment is
premature. The Court may consider appointment of counsel
later in this litigation once the disputed issues have become
Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery
motion for discovery will be denied without prejudice as
premature. To the extent the complaint (or amended version of
it) survives screening, it will be served and the defendants
will respond. Discovery will be permitted in due course as to
any claims that survive that process.
Preliminary Screening - Amendment of the
plaintiff is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2)(B) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. These statutes authorize a court to
review prisoner complaints in civil actions in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or
officers or employees of a governmental entity, and to
dismiss the action regardless of whether or not the plaintiff
has paid the filing fee, if the complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief
from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In connection with
this preliminary screening, plaintiff's pro se
complaint is construed generously. Hughes v. Rowe,
449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972); Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp.
v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir.
complaint fails to comply with rule Rule 8(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires that the
complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . . a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief
sought[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3). This statement
must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,
'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). It must
afford the defendants a “[‘]meaningful
opportunity to mount a defense, ' ”
Díaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 377
F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Rodríguez
v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir.
1995)). Similarly, Rule 10 requires that a plaintiff must
state its claims “in numbered ...