United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
VERNON S. RIVET, JR., Plaintiff,
LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action
December 22, 2017, pro se litigant Vernon S. Rivet,
Jr. filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1), the text of which
consisted of the following:
Since the beating I found out that it was all planned out by
Adam Dusheram through Jennifer Allen Norman's ex-wife.
She told me who was involved with this all planned out. Nov.
2, 2017 is when she told me this and said that she would
write me a letter. Also she stated who was involved Normant
Wiatne with police Mike Rapossa with Kaynic Corp, who bought
my 36 acre junk yard and no clean-up of the property. Web
site's www.townfarmlane.com/ and the pollution
done I was illegally sold I was willed to me in the Book of
Willis by John Bonano who also did time for [?] the machines.
Roge Adam Ducharm. EAL Police, No. 8.17.
Compl. at 1 (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization
standardized in part). The complaint was accompanied by
twenty pages of exhibits.
15, 2018, the Court issued an order (Dkt. No. 6) granting
Rivet's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and directing him to file an amended complaint.
The Court explained that his original complaint did not meet
the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 8(a)(2)”). The
Court explicitly stated that the amended complaint must
identify “what each defendant did that caused [Rivet]
harm or violated his rights, including the dates and places
of that involvement or conduct.” Id.
timely filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 7). While the
amended complaint was more comprehensible than the original
complaint, the claims therin consisted entirely of
generalized statements of wrongdoing. In a memorandum and
order dated July 27, 2018 (Dkt. No. 8), the Court directed
Rivet to file a second amended complaint in which he
identified the specific action of each defendant, including
when and where the relevant events occurred. The Court
specifically directed Rivet to title the document as a
“Second Amended Complaint.”
September 4, 2018, the Court received an untitled document
from Rivet (Dkt. No. 9), which was docketed as a letter.
Although not captioned as a second amended complaint, the
Court assumes that the document was filed in response to the
Court's July 27, 2018 memorandum and order. For ease of
reference, the Court will refer to the document as the second
second amended complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2).
The Court can surmise that Rivet is complaining of a range of
alleged misconduct: he was almost beaten to death by the
Lowell Police Department in 2015; he was falsely accused of
“going after” his former wife; state employees
forcibly took sand from Rivet's property and replaced it
with debris from the “Big Dig” construction
project, causing an aquifer to reroute; a government employee
tore the will of Rivet's father out of a “book of
wills”; Rivet's neighbor assaulted him; Rivet's
neighbor and another person broke into Rivet's residence
and stole his personal property; and a police officer
interviewed Rivet about his neighbor's wrongful conduct.
See Second Amend. Compl. (Dkt. No. 9).
a pleading that merely provides a vague understanding of the
plaintiff's claims does not meet the requirements of Rule
8(a)(2). As a threshold matter, Rivet has not clearly
identified the defendants. Even if the Court assumes that all
persons mentioned in second amended complaint are defendants,
the pleading is nonetheless insufficient. For the most part,
Rivet does not clearly identify what each defendant did that
caused him harm or violated his rights, including the dates
and places of the defendants' alleged misconduct.
factual assertions concerning two matters arguably rise to
the level of well-pled factual allegations, but they do not
save this action for different reasons. Rivet claims that on
August 28, 2018, a police officer who identified himself as
Timothy Roussell questioned Rivet about the assault by his
neighbor. Rivet asked the officer about the “other
Timothy Roussell who works on the force.” Id.
at 2. The officer responded that “he was the only Tim
Roussell on the police force with this name and that he had
been on the force since before the beating in [December]
2015.” Id. Rivet thought there was
“something . . . up with this” because he had
“known Tim Roussell since 1968 in high school.”
Id. He believed that “the chief of the Lowell
police [was] up to something by sending this man here to
interview [Rivet] about this incident.” Id.
While the factual assertions are arguably clear, the Court
cannot reasonably infer therefrom any wrongdoing. In other
words, any claim of misconduct is not plausible. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)
(“[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief, ” and “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility
of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not
‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to
relief'” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (alteration
factual allegations of claims of assault and theft by his
neighbor are presumably sufficiently pled for purposes of
Rule 8(a)(2). However, they arise under state law. In the
absence of a separate claim arising under federal law or a
state law claim against defendants who do not reside in
Massachusetts, the Court does not have subject ...