Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norris v. Global Tel Link Corp.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

March 14, 2018

KEVIN T. NORRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL TEL LINK CORP., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          Leo T. Sorokin, United States District Judge.

         On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff Kevin Norris, proceeding pro se, sued Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”), [1] as well as other since dismissed defendants, over various complaints Norris has with the telephone service provided to him by GTL while he was incarcerated in one of Massachusetts' correctional facilities. See Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 44-1 at 1. On September 1, 2016, the Court dismissed all counts of the Complaint except Count III, which alleges violations of the Federal Communication Act (“FCA”) against GTL. Doc. No. 37. With respect to Count III, the Court ruled that “Norris's claims regarding intrastate rates and issues with GTL's service may proceed” but stayed the claim “pending the [Federal Communications Commission's (“FCC”) consideration of [it.]” Doc. No. 37 at 6-8.

         On October 4, 2016, Norris sought that the Court's order of stay be lifted. Doc. No. 44. The Court denied the motion, finding Norris had failed to exhaust the FCC's remedies. Doc. No. 53. On February 27, 2017, Norris again sought that the stay be lifted, Doc. No. 56, and the Court again denied Norris's motion, Doc. No. 60.

         Now, Norris once again seeks that the stay be lifted, averring that he has exhausted the FCC's remedies. Doc. No. 65.

         I. FCC REMEDY EXHAUSTION

         The FCC provides a two-step remedy process for consumers such as Norris. Doc. No. 69 at 4. The first step is an “informal complaint, ” which may be filed online, by phone, or through the mail.[2] See Federal Communications Commission, Filing an Informal Complaint, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint, (last visited Mar. 9, 2018). An informal complaint should include: the name, address, and contact information of the complainant, and as much detail about the complaint as possible. Id. Once received, the FCC “will forward [the informal complaint] to the appropriate carrier for investigation.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. Then, “[t]he carrier will . . . advise the [FCC] in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so.” Id. The FCC may then “in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, ” and take no further action. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. In all other cases, the FCC will “contact the complainant regarding its review and disposition of the matters raised [in the informal complaint.]” Id. “When an informal complaint has not been satisfied” at the end of this process, the consumer may then proceed to the second step of the FCC two-step remedy process by “fil[ing] a formal complaint with [the FCC.]” 47 C.F.R. § 1.718. A formal complaint proceeding is similar to a court proceeding. “Each party must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the FCC and file documents that address legal issues.” Federal Communications Commission, Filing a Complaint: Questions and Answers, https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/205082880-Filing-a-Complaint-Questions-and-Answers, (last visited Mar. 11, 2018).

         II. DISCUSSION

         On September 1, 2016, the Court stayed Norris's FCA claim, instructing Norris to exhaust the remedies provided by the FCC before proceeding with his claim in this Court. Doc. No. 37. Norris asserts that he has now done so. Doc. No. 65 at 1. In support of his assertion, Norris has provided the Court with the following documents:

1. A letter dated October 17, 2016 addressed to the Consumer Division of the FCC expressing an intent to file a complaint against GTL and inquiring about the procedure, Doc. No. 65-1 at 5;
2. A letter dated December 12, 2016 addressed to the Chairman of the FCC expressing an intent to file a complaint against GTL and describing the substance of that complaint, id. at 6;
3. A letter dated January 26, 2017 addressed to the District Office of the FCC in Quincy expressing an intent to file a complaint with the FCC, id. at 7;
4. A letter dated January 26, 2017 addressed to the General Counsel of the FCC describing the Chairman's failure to respond to the December 12, 2016 letter and his desire for a response, id. at 8.
5. Norris's sworn statement that, on May 2, 2017, Norris “placed inside the prison mailbox, a complaint against [GTL] and [he] forwarded [sic] to the [FCC], ” but has “not received a response to [his] complaint, ” Doc. No. 65-2;
6. A mailing dated May 2, 2017 and captioned “Re: Complaint Global Tel Link Corporations/holdings, ” “filing a complaint against [GTL], ” Doc. No. 65-1 at 1-2. The mailing is addressed to Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.