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.

Evariste v. Massachusetts Probation Service

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

June 11, 2019

EMMANUEL EVARISTE, Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS PROBATION SERVICE and P.O. GORDON DIMBROSIO, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court allows plaintiff's motion to amend and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and denies plaintiff's motions for speedy trial, to expedite final judgment, for injunctive relief, for default judgment, to amend relief, and for service by Marshall. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, the Court will permit him to file a second amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies noted below.

         I. Background

         Emmanuel Evariste (“Evariste”), now in custody at the Bristol County Jail and House of Correction, filed a pro se complaint accompanied by an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. See Docket Nos. 1, 2.

         Because Evariste's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs was filed without a copy of his prison account statement, the Application was denied without prejudice. See Docket No. 4. In response, Evariste filed an unsigned motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a copy of his inmate account activity report. See Docket No. 10. Also pending are motions for speedy trial, to expedite final judgment, for injunctive relief, for default judgment, to amend, to proceed in forma pauperis, to amend relief, and for service by Marshall. See Docket Nos. 5-11, 13-15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 31-32, 34.

         The original complaint names as defendants the Massachusetts Probation Service and Probation Officer Gordon Dimbrosio. See Docket No. 1. Evariste's most recent motion to amend is accompanied by a proposed amended complaint that names as defendants the City of Boston and Probation Officer Gordon Dimbrosio. See Docket No. 36. As best can be gleaned from the proposed amended complaint, Evariste alleges that at his June 25, 2018 arraignment on a drug charge in state court, the defendant probation officer produced a violation sheet stating that Evariste had failed to report to probation on May 17, 2018, when in fact he had. Id. Evariste contends that he was deprived of his freedom when he was subsequently held on a probation detainer. Id. at p. 1. Evariste seeks monetary damages in the amount of “$10 million” for “great harm, mental anguish, pain and suffering.” Id. at p. 4.

         II. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Upon review of Evariste's motion (Docket No. 25) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and prison account statement, the Court concludes that he is without income or assets to pay the $400.00 filing fee. Because Evariste is not a prisoner as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h)[1], he is not obligated to make payments towards the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Evariste's motion is therefore granted.

         III. Preliminary Screening

         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 complaints 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).

         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).

         In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes the pleadings because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004). Even under a broad reading, however, this action is subject to dismissal for the reasons set forth below and the plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to file a second amended complaint.

         IV. Discussion

         In this matter, Evariste seeks to hold the City of Boston and a probation officer liable for alleged negligence and ...


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.