United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.
Jason Hammel initiated this civil rights action concerning
events that occurred while he was in custody of the Norfolk
County Sheriff. See Dkt. No. 1. He complains that
the Norfolk County defendants failed to provide adequate
mental health treatment and that despite his physical and
mental disabilities, he was criminally prosecuted even with
the omission of exculpatory evidence and without proper
investigation of alleged false statements made by his mother.
Id. He seeks monetary damages and names the
following twelve defendants: (1) the Norfolk County District
Attorneys' Office; (2) ADA Danielle Piccarini; (3) ADA
Lisa Beatty; (4) Sheriff Michael Bellotti; (5) Dr. Patricia
Pickett; (6) Superintendent Gerard Horgan; (7) Assistant
Deputy Superintendent Danielle Boomhower; (8) County of
Norfolk; (9) Town of Stoughton, town manager; (10) Stoughton
Police Department; (11) Stoughton District Court; and (12)
Sandree Lee Hammel. Id.
this action was commenced without payment of the filing fee,
Hammel was granted additional time either to pay the fee or
file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Dkt. No. 5. The Procedural Order explained that
unlike other civil litigants, prisoner plaintiffs are not
entitled to a complete waiver of the filing fee and that the
Court would direct the appropriate prison official to
withdraw an initial partial payment from the plaintiff's
account, followed by payments on a monthly basis until the
entire $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. Id. at n.
2. Even if the action is dismissed upon a preliminary
screening, the plaintiff remains obligated to pay the fee.
Id. In response, Hammel filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis accompanied by a copy of his
prison account statement. See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.
Memorandum and Order dated July 27, 2018, Hammel's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and he was
assessed an obligation to make monthly payments towards the
filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
See Dkt. No. 8. Additionally, he was advised that
his complaint would be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915, 1915A, unless he demonstrates good cause
in writing why this action should not be dismissed, or, in
the alternative, files an amended complaint. Id. The
Order explained that the complaint fails to comply with the
basic pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and fails to state a claim against the Stoughton
Police Department, the Stoughton District Court and the
Office of the Norfolk County District Attorney. The Order
stated that pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman and
Younger doctrines, this Court is without subject
matter jurisdiction to review the state court proceedings.
Finally, the Order explained that the complaint fails to
state a claim for damages against ADA Danielle Piccarini, ADA
Lisa Beatty and Sandree Lee Hammel since these defendants are
immune from suit.
before the Court is plaintiff Jason Hammel's response to
the Court's order to show cause. See Dkt. No.
eight-page, handwritten response, Hammel asks the Court to
“keep this docket [number] active until [Hammel's]
release in 7 months.” See Dkt. No. 10, p. 1.
Hammel then asks the Court to freeze any further withdrawals
from his prison account for payment of the filing fee. Under
the in forma pauperis statute, the court is directed
to “assess and, when funds exist, collect”
payments towards the filing fee based upon the statutory
formula. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Thus, the
Court is unable to freeze further withdrawals from
Hammel asks to have his case move forward against the
following 6 defendants: (1) Sheriff Michael Bellotti; (2) Dr.
Patricia Pickett; (3) Superintendent Gerard Horgan; (4)
Norfolk County; (5) the Town of Stoughton; and (6) Sandra
Hammel. Id. at p. 4. Hammel's response includes
one written paragraph for each of these six defendants in
which he makes very general and conclusory allegations
against each defendant, but without the specificity needed to
state a claim. Id. at pages 5 - 8.
carefully reviewing Hammel's response, the Court finds
that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any reason why this
action should not be dismissed. Although Hammel again states
that his civil rights were violated while he was a pre-trial
detainee due to the lack of adequate mental health treatment,
he fails to address the pleading deficiencies outlined in
this Court's Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff had a full
opportunity file an amended complaint or to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim and the Court concludes that it
would be futile to permit further amendment.
based on the foregoing and for the reasons previously set
forth in the Memorandum and Order (Dkt. No. 8), it is hereby
ORDERED that this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915, 1915A.