United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Talwani United States District Judge
reasons set forth below, the court allows Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees
[#2] but finds that Plaintiff's Complaint [#1]
fails to show that this court has subject matter jurisdiction
and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file
an amended complaint setting forth a basis for this
court's subject matter jurisdiction and a plausible claim
upon which relief may be granted.
April 16, 2019, Clement Morris (“Morris”), a
resident of South Boston, Massachusetts, filed a pro
se complaint accompanied by an Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees. Morris seeks damages in the
amount of $75, 000 and names as defendants one doctor and one
nurse at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, one current
member and one former member of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives, and the Boston Medical Emergency Department.
Id. For the statement of the claim, plaintiff
writes: “negligent homicide, police headquarters in
Roxbury, denied civil right by saying sorry or he is
crazy.” Id. at ¶ III (statement of
claim). Plaintiff also states “implied hate crime by
calling [plaintiff an expletive]. Id. at ¶ IV
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
review of Morris' motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the court concludes that Morris is
without assets to pay the filing fee and ALLOWS the motion.
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 his 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).
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
Morris' complaint because Morris is proceeding pro
se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
asserts that the basis for this court's jurisdiction as
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).
See Complaint (“Compl.”), Docket No. 1.
A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction where the
matter in controversy exceeds $75, 000 and is between
citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Here, there does not appear to be any basis for diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the Defendants are all
citizens of Massachusetts. In addition, while Plaintiff
claims $75, 000 in controversy, he gives no explanation of
that claimed amount A federal court also has subject matter
jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law.
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although the civil cover sheet
accompanying the Complaint indicates that this action is
brought pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the
Complaint includes no facts to support a claim under that
Act. Indeed, the court is unable to discern from the
Complaint precisely who Morris alleges is liable for what
Morris wishes to pursue this action, Morris must file an
amended complaint that clearly identifies what each defendant
did wrong and the legal claim against each party. Morris must
also identify a basis for this court's subject matter
jurisdiction. As an amended complaint completely supercedes
the original complaint, see Connectu LLC v.
Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 91 (1st Cir. 2008), Morris
should include in the amended complaint anything from the
original complaint that he wishes to be part of the amended