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.

Liviz v. Supreme Court of United States of America

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

December 14, 2018

ILYA LIVIZ, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         For the 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On 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].

         The Court's records indicate that Liviz is a frequent litigant in this Court, where he has appeared both as an attorney[1] and as a pro se litigant.[2]

         Through 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).

         Liviz 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. In Forma Pauperis

         Upon 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 therefore granted.

         B. Screening of the Action

         When a 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. ยง 1915(e)(2). In conducting ...


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.