United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENNIS SAYLOR IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, plaintiff's pending motions will be
denied, the Boston Police Department will be dismissed from
this action, and plaintiff will be ordered (1) to either pay
the $400 filing or file a renewed and complete in forma
pauperis motion, and (2) file an amended complaint that
cures the deficiencies identified below.
December 17, 2018, pro se prisoner Emmanuel Evariste
filed this action against the Boston Police Department,
Officer Jonathan O'Brien and Officer K. Dugal. Evariste
alleges that he was subject to illegal search and seizure,
contending that he was strip-searched in a convenience store
by the officers. He further contends that he was taken into
custody, and at some point he suffered personal injury in an
automobile accident while in the custody of the Suffolk
County Sheriff's Office. Along with his complaint,
Evariste filed an incomplete motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, a motion for discovery, and
motion for speedy trial.
December 21, 2018, the Court ordered Evariste to file a
renewed and complete motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. On January 22, 2019, he filed a renewed motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. Subsequent to filing
this motion, Evariste filed a motion to amend the complaint,
a motion to expedite final judgment, a motion for summary
judgment, a motion for injunctive relief, a motion for
judiciary [sic] notice, and two motions for default judgment.
The Filing Fee
renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be
denied because it did not include an affidavit as required by
28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1), nor did it include a complete
prisoner account statement as required by 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(2). Evariste will be afforded a final
opportunity to resolve the fee payment issue. By April 22,
2019, he shall either: (1) pay the $400 filing and
administrative fee or (2) file a renewed and complete motion
to proceed in forma pauperis including the required
prisoner account statements “for the 6-month period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . .,
obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at
which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(2). The clerk will be directed to provide
Evariste with a form AO240, Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
Initial Screening of the Complaint
Evariste is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In connection with that
preliminary screening, his pro se complaint will be
construed generously. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972);
Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of
Education, 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000).
Boston Police Department Is Not an Entity Subject to
Boston Police Department is not an entity separate from the
City of Boston, and therefore not subject to suit under 42
U.S.C. §1983. Douglas v. Boston Police
Dep't, No. C.A. 10-11049-WGY, 2010 WL 2719970, at *2
(D. Mass. July 1, 2010) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the
Boston Police department is not a proper party defendant to
this lawsuit, and will be dismissed. Id. (citing
Curran v. City of Boston, 777 F.Supp. 116, 120 (D.
Mass. 1991). Douglas v. Boston Police Dep't, No.
C.A. 10-11049-WGY, 2010 WL 2719970, at *2 (D. Mass. July 1,
The Complaint Fails to Comply with the Pleading
Requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
present form, the complaint fails to comply with the basic
pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to include in the
complaint, among other things, “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This statement must
“‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). It must afford the
defendant(s) a “[‘]meaningful opportunity to
mount a defense, '” Díaz-Rivera v.
Rivera-Rodríguez, 377 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir.
2004) (quoting Rodríguez v. Doral Mortgage
Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)). “In a
civil rights action as ...