United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, the Court allows plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2],
denies plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief [ECF No.
4], dismisses the complaint [ECF No. 1], and certifies that
any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
December 10, 2018, Plaintiff Ilya Liviz
(“Liviz”), filed a complaint naming as defendants
the United States Supreme Court and it's nine justices
[ECF No. 1]. With the complaint, Liviz filed an Application
to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs
[ECF No. 2]. Four days later, on December 14, 2018, Liviz
filed a motion for injunctive relief [ECF No. 4].
Court's records indicate that Liviz is a frequent
litigant in this Court, where he has appeared both as an
attorney and as a pro se
this action, Liviz challenges the Supreme Court's
practice of not allowing cameras in the courtrooms of the
United States Supreme Court as well as the state and federal
courts in Massachusetts. In the section of the Complaint
titled “AUTHORITY FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE
RELIE AUTHORTY” plaintiff alleges:
19. Matters concerning installation of video recording within
the courts concerns non-judicial administrative function. If,
arguendo, defendants try to claim inapposite,
Plaintiff can maintain action still; “… any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
Compl. ¶19 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
contends that that the availability of video would have been
helpful in his litigation because “[t]hings on video
become more obvious because there is a presence of more
‘facts.'” Id. ¶ 29. In his
emergency motion, Liviz seeks an evidentiary hearing and
contends that the Supreme Court should comply with the
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b, and the First Amendment.
In Forma Pauperis
review of Liviz' motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court concludes that he is without income
or assets to pay the $400.00 filing fee. The motion is
Screening of the Action
plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the
filing fee, summonses do not issue until the Court reviews
the complaint and determines that it satisfies the
substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section
1915 authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint sua
sponte if the claims therein lack an arguable basis in
law or in fact, fail to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). In conducting ...