United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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).
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.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
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.
SCREENING OF THE ACTION
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).
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).
Pleading Requirements of Rule 8
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 ...