United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. SARIS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons stated below, the Court grants plaintiff's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, denies plaintiff's
motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief and dismisses
Gregory Papadopoulos, a resident of New York, filed his
self-prepared complaint naming as defendants the United
States Government, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”) and Alfonso “Alfy” Fanjul
(alleged “boss of Fanjul Organized Crime
Family”). See Docket No. 1, Complaint
(“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges “corrupt
cooperation and conspiracy” between the FBI and Fanjul
and seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief.
Id. at p. 1.
complaint consists primarily of a recounting of events
spanning more than twenty-five years as well as a list of
plaintiff's subsequent efforts for legal redress.
Plaintiff arrived in the United States from Greece in 1964 to
attend Columbia University and subsequently married and
became a successful trader and broker on Wall Street. Compl.
p. 2. Plaintiff states that beginning in “1995[, the]
defendants imitating the FBI-Whitey Bulger conspiracy in
Boston set out to destroy our lives.” Id. at
p. 2. With the complaint, plaintiff attaches the following
three exhibits: (1) a description of Fanjul Organized Crime
Family; (2) a list of judicial assignments of 80 federal and
states cases submitted as proof of an “FBI-Gangster
conspiracy, ” and (3) an email from plaintiff's
sister which plaintiff alleges is a settlement offer from the
his complaint, Papadopoulos filed a self-prepared motion to
proceed in forma pauperis as well as an affidavit in
support of his request for a preliminary injunction.
See Docket Nos. 2, 3.
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
filing a civil action must either pay the filing fee or file
an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(proceedings in forma pauperis). Upon review of
Papadoupoulos' motion, the Court concludes that he has
shown that he is without assets to pay the filing fee.
Accordingly, his motion is allowed.
OF THE COMPLAINT
the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his
complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss
actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without
prepayment of fees if the action is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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). The
court accepts well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as
true, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
pro se plaintiff such as Papadopoulos is entitled to
a liberal reading of his allegations, even when such
allegations are inartfully pled. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Rodi v. New
Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004).
construed liberally, Papadopoulos' complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He fails to
state the legal basis for his claim and it is impossible to
discern from the complaint precisely ...