United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM G. YOUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons stated below, the Court will allow the motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, allow plaintiffs
motion to amend the complaint, dismiss the action sua
sponte, and deny the motions for appointment of pro
bono counsel as moot.
November 28, 2017, pro se plaintiff Dennis Turner filed a
complaint against defendants Mike Ware (private security firm
owner), Cavkil Bromfield (private security guard), Jay White
(Burger King franchise owner), Attorney General Maura Healey
and Governor Charlie Baker. Currently pending before the
Court are a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, two
motions for for the appointment of pro bono counsel,
and a motion to amend the complaint.
proposed amended complaint is virtually identical to the
original complaint. Turner alleges that on February 12, 2017
he was a homeless person looking to warm up at a Burger King
in Boston. He claims that he did not have any money to
purchase food or drink at the Burger King and was forcibly
removed by defendant Bromfield. Upon his removal, MBTA Police
arrested him on allegedly false statements made by Bromfield
that Turner had spit on him. Turner was taken to a Boston
Police station and made to wait in the transport until he
could be processed by the Boston Police. At some point, MBTA
officers released Turner apparently without being processed.
Although plaintiff claims that this incident is an example of
"police abuse, " he has not sued any of the police
months later, on May 18, 2017, Tuner was arrested on a
warrant concerning the assault after being stopped by local
police in Chelsea, Massachusetts. After several court
appearances at which Bromfield did not appear, the charges
were dismissed. Turner was assessed a court fee of $150, and
was permitted to perform 15 hours of community service in
lieu of payment of the fee. Turner chose to perform community
service. Turner seeks only monetary relief against the
A. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in forma
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is
meritorious and it is hereby allowed.
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend the
motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is
hereby allowed. Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a
matter of course without leave of court. See. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1). Accordingly, the motion to amend is allowed, and
the proposed Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8-1, will be docketed
by the Clerk as the operative pleading.
Preliminary Screening of the Amended
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his
amended complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). In connection with this preliminary
screening, plaintiffs pro se Amended 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. 2000).
Eleventh Amendment Immunity Bars Official Capacity Monetary
Damages Claims Under 42 U.S.C. ...