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.

King Lazarre v. Turco

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 10, 2019

EPIPHANY LAZARU KING LAZARRE, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS A. TURCO, III, Commissioner, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Denise J. Casper, United States District Judge.

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court allows Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis; denies Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, for private investigator, for appointment of Marshal and for records from DLC, PLS, DPPC, OCCC. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, the Court grants him time to file an amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies noted below.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Ephiphany Lazaru King Lazarre, now in custody at the Old Colony Correctional Center, brings this action seeking monetary damages from fifty-eight defendants for alleged “medical malpractices, damages, conscious pain and suffering and emotional distress, neglects, discriminations, civil rights, crimes, threats, manipulation, racism, contraband, false punishments, malicious abuses, [unintelligible], defamations, violations, lost wages, traumas and the voices of the martyrs and others I will bring to court very soon”. D. 1, p. 30, see also Id. p. 3 (introduction).

         Plaintiff alleges that he speaks “Haitian Creole and [is] unable to write everything in English and [does] not have [any] experience in law.” Id. at p. 31. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other things, deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs. Id. at p. 18. The factual allegations are contained in twenty-five pages, each page handwritten and single spaced. Id. at pp. 5 - 30.

         Now pending are Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, for appointment of private investigator, for appointment of the United States Marshal, to proceed in forma pauperis, and for copies of records from Old Colony Correctional Center, Prisoners' Legal Services, the Disability Law Center and the Disabled Persons Protection Commission. D. 2 - 9.

         II. Discussion

         A. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Upon review of Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court concludes that he is without income or assets to pay the filing fee. The Court therefore grants the motion and the $350 filing fee shall be collected in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

         B. 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. Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, prisoner complaints in civil actions that seek redress from a governmental entity or officers or employees of a governmental entity are also subject to screening. Both § 1915 and § 1915A authorize 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         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).

         Rule 8(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that allegations in the complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). In assessing the sufficiency of the complaint, “an inquiring court must first separate wheat from chaff; that is, the court must separate the complaint's factual allegations (which must be accepted as true) from its conclusory legal allegations (which need not be credited).” Guadalupe-Baez v. Pesquera, 819 F.3d 509, 514 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2012)). The Court must then determine “whether the well-pleaded facts, taken in their entirety, permit ‘the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Id. (citations 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 ...


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.