United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ALBERT FULTON JR. III, Plaintiff,
WORCESTER SUPERIOR COURT DEPT., WORCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JUSTICE JANET KENTON-WALKER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY COURTNEY SANS, SHERIFF LEWIS EVANGELIDIS, SUPERINTENDENT DAVID TUTTLE, CLASSIFICATION COORDINATOR PAUL THEISEN, DEPUTY SCOTT MCMILLEN, and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEAN HATCH, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
H. HENNESSY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
reasons stated below, the Court will allow the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, assess an initial filing
fee, deny without prejudice the motion to serve by First
Class Mail as moot, deny without prejudice the motion to
appoint counsel, and order plaintiff to file an amended
April 4, 2018, pro se pretrial detainee plaintiff,
Albert Fulton Jr. III, filed a voluminous complaint against
the Worcester County Superior Court Department
(“Superior Court”), Worcester County
Sheriff's Office (“WCSO”), Honorable Janet
Kenton-Walker, Assistant District Attorney Courtney Sans,
Worcester County Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis, Superintendent
David Tuttle, Deputy Scott McMillen, Classification
Coordinator Paul Theisen, and Corrections Officer Dean Hatch.
Fulton alleges, among other things, that he was extorted and
assaulted by inmates, and that these assaults were
preventable. He further alleges that he was
retaliated-against, mistreated and harassed by defendant Dean
Hatch, and that other defendants were aware of, and did
nothing, to resolve Fulton's issues. Fulton claims some
defendants are responsible because of their supervisory
positions. Additionally, Fulton also claims that a state
court judge improperly denied his motions for a jail transfer
and that an Assistant District Attorney disclosed information
to a state-court defendant that placed him in danger of
physical harm. Fulton seeks damages and injunctive relief
against the defendants.
2, 2018, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis because it did not include a
prison account statement as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14, 2018 plaintiff filed a renewed motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, but without a complete prison account
statement. On May 18, 2018, the Court ordered plaintiff to
file a complete prison account statement. On June 7, 2018 and
June 28, 2018, the Court received a complete prisoner account
statement. Also currently pending is a motion to permit
service of the complaint by first class mail and motion for
appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Leave to File In Forma
Pauperis and Motion to Serve Complaint by First Class
renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 8) is hereby ALLOWED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the Court assesses
an initial partial filing fee of $15.30. The remainder of the
fee, $334.70, shall be collected in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2). The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order
to the Treasurer's Office at the Suffolk County House of
Correction, along with the standard Notice to Prison form. As
plaintiff is being permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis, his motion to serve the complaint by first
class mail (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice
as MOOT. Summonses, however, shall not issue until
further order of the Court.
Preliminary Screening of the Complaint
plaintiff is a prisoner and proceeding in forma
pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §1915A, and 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).
Claims Against Justice Janet Kenton-Walker Barred By Absolute
claims against Judge Janet Kenton-Walker are barred by the
doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Becks v. Plymouth
County Superior Court, 511 F.Supp.2d 203, 206
(D.Mass.2007) (“Absolute immunity from civil liability
applies to any judicial officer for any normal and routine
judicial act.”). “Absolute immunity applies to
‘judges performing judicial acts within their
jurisdiction,' and the protection it affords applies even
if the official ‘acted maliciously and corruptly in
exercising his judicial ... functions' or ‘in the
presence of grave procedural errors.'” Ives v.
Agastoni, No. CV 15-30153-MAP, 2015 WL 9647559, at *3
(D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2015)(quoting Goldstein v.
Galvin, 719 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir.2013)), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 15-CV-30153-MAP, 2016 WL 79881
(D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2016). Plaintiff merely alleges that Judge