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. Baker

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

February 21, 2019

ILYA LIVIZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLIE BAKER, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          WILLIAM G. YOUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court allows plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denies plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, and directs plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

         I. Relevant Background

         On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff Ilya Liviz (“Liviz”), filed a complaint naming as defendants the governor for each state. Docket No. 1. With the complaint, Liviz filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 2. The following day, on February 20, 2019, Liviz filed a corrected motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and an ex-parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Docket Nos. 4, 5.

         Plaintiff's 32-page complaint is divided into 6 parts as follows: Part I (federal court jurisdiction); Part II (civil action general allegations); Part III (class-wide injury); Part IV (constitutional basis); Part V (injunctive relief class); and Part VI (relief sought). See Complaint (“Compl.”). In addition to asserting constitutional and common-law claims, the complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.; the Clayton Act; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.; 29 U.S.C. § 187(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1982; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985; 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Id. at ¶¶ 120 - 180.

         Through this purported class action, Liviz seeks to challenge alleged discriminatory conduct concerning the right to travel. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 48. Liviz alleges that his Massachusetts drivers' license was (1) deemed non-renewable based upon unpaid tickets, id. at ¶ 26, and (2) suspended based upon three surchargable events. Id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiff explains that by the paying applicable fees and completing a driver retraining program, he could obtain a Massachusetts driver's license. Id. at ¶ 30. However, Liviz complains that that many of the listed offenses are inaccurate and/or not within a 24-month period. Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff contends that because of his indigence, his right to operate a motor vehicle is improperly restricted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, class certification and injunctive relief. Id. at Part III (prayer for relief).

         As to the motion for injunctive relief, Liviz seeks an order enjoining Governor Baker or any state agent from preventing plaintiff from operating a motor vehicle. See Pl.'s Mot., 5-1 (proposed order).

         II. Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis

         Upon review of Liviz' motions 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 motions are therefore granted.

         III. Preliminary Screening of the Complaint

         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. § 1915(e)(2).

         A. Standing

         A federal court is empowered only to decide “cases” and “controversies.” N.H. Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing U.S. Const. art. III). In order to establish standing, Liviz must show that (1) he personally has suffered some actual or imminent injury as a result of the challenged conduct; (2) the injury can fairly be traced to that conduct; and (3) the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision from the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

         555, 560-61 (1992). Here, there are no adequate allegations that the non-Massachusetts defendants caused the plaintiff any injury. Conclusory assertions of harm in states ...


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.