United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM G. YOUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, the Court denies without prejudice
plaintiff's motions for counsel and for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and directs plaintiff to (1)
either pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) file an
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified below.
April 5, 2019, Karen Brown Holmes (“Holmes”), a
resident of Boston, Massachusetts, filed a pro se
complaint accompanied by motions for appointment of counsel
and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
complaint is submitted on a pre-printed form and states the
basis for this court's jurisdiction as 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (federal question). See Complaint
(“Compl.”), Docket No. 1. Named as defendants are
the Carpenters Training Center and Local 2168. Id.
The complaint contains no factual allegations nor request for
relief. Id. The civil cover sheet accompanying the
complaint indicates that is an employment civil rights
action. See Docket No. 1-1.
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
indicates that she is employed as a trainee at the Pine
Street Inn and that she receives disability or workers
compensation payments. However, she fails to state the amount
of her wages and the amount she receives in disability or
workers compensation payments. Because the financial
information in the motion is incomplete, the court is unable
to determine whether the plaintiff qualifies for in forma
pauperis status and will deny the motion without
Screening of the Complaint
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Consequently, a plaintiff who seeks to bring her suit in a
federal forum bears the burden of establishing that the
federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction. See
Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d 32, 35
(1st Cir. 2017). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, confer “federal
question” and “diversity” jurisdiction,
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).
conducting this review, the court liberally construes
Holmes' complaint because Holmes is proceeding pro
se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
there does not appear to be any basis for diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the
plaintiff and the defendants appear to be citizens of
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
the complaint does not identify a cause of action under
federal law. Holmes indicates on the civil cover sheet that
this is a civil rights action related to her employment.
However, it is impossible to discern from the ...