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.

Mangianfico v. Stanton

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

March 20, 2019

FRANCO MANGIANFICO, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH STANTON, Appeals Clerk, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) grants the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) denies the plaintiff's emergency motion; and (3) directs the plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On March 14, 2019, pro se plaintiff Franco Mangianfico of Lynn, Massachusetts, filed a complaint naming as defendant the Clerk of Court for the Massachusetts Appeals Court. See Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. With his complaint, Mangianfico filed an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. See Dkt. No. 2. On March 18, 2019, he filed an emergency motion seeking a stay. See Dkt. No. 4.

         In his complaint, Mangianfico alleges that he “is over 65 [and that] has been deprived of his civil right to proceed with [a] filed appeal.” See Compl., ¶ IV. For relief, he seeks damages for such violation. Id. The civil cover sheet indicates that Mangianfico seeks to remove “2018-P-1603” from state court to this federal court. See Civil Cover Sheet, Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶ V (removed from state court), ¶ VIII (related cases).

         Mangianfico's emergency motion is titled as a “Writ of Mandamus” and seeks an “Emergency Stay of “all” lower court [proceedings, including the] Appeal Court.See Dkt. No. 4, p. 1 (emphasis in original). Mangianfico explains that the landlord breached the lease and that, to date, he and his elderly aunt have placed almost $17, 000 in escrow and paid over $23, 4000 in rent over fourteen months. Id. at p. 3. He complains that the “lower Housing Court gave an Arbitrary Order; which can't be complied; impractical and intention to deprive Appeal.” Id. at p. 2. Mangianfico seeks to have this federal court “hear and review the Complaint that the Appeals Court Clerk has committed an unlawful order; and further review by Appeals Court has granted jurisdiction back to the “Lower Court” housing court.” Id. at p 4.

         II. IN FORMA PAUPERIS

         Upon review of Mangianfico's 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.

         III. SCREENING OF THE ACTION

         When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the filing fee, a summons does 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 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). When examining the sufficiency of the pleadings, the court considers whether the plaintiff has pled “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court accepts as true the factual allegations of the complaint, draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff that are supported by the factual allegations, and determines whether the complaint, so read, sets forth a claim for recovery that is “ ‘plausible on its face.” Eldredge v. Town of Falmouth, 662 F.3d 100, 104 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted)). A plaintiff's complaint need not provide an exhaustive factual account, only a short and plain statement. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). However, the allegations must be sufficient to identify the manner by which the defendant subjected the plaintiff to harm and the harm alleged must be one for which the law affords a remedy. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Legal conclusions couched as facts and “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. See also Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).

         In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes the complaint because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. Pleading Requirements of Rule 8

          As an initial matter, the complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A pro se litigant's obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure includes the requirement that a complaint complies with the “short and plain statement” requirement.” See Koplow v. Watson, 751 F.Supp.2d 317 (D. Mass. 2010) (dismissing pro se complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8). Here, the pertinent allegations against the defendant state, in a conclusory fashion, that plaintiff's right to ...


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.