United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
B. SARIS CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Ramos, who is incarcerated at the Bristol County Jail and
House of Correction ("Bristol County HOC"), has
filed a pro se complaint in which he alleges that,
on June 10, 2019, Bristol County HOC Correction Officer Trent
Cardoso wrongfully "assaulted and battered" him.
Compl. ¶ 6. Ramos also claims that Bristol County
Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, "failed to properly train"
Cardoso. Id. ¶ 7. Ramos names Cardoso and
Hodgson as defendants. The plaintiff also seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
review of the complaint and the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, the Court hereby orders:
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED. According to the prison
account statement submitted by the Bristol County HOC (Docket
Entry No. 5), Ramos has been without income or assets for
more than six months. Accordingly, no initial partial filing
fee is assessed. The entire $350 filing fee shall be
collected in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The
Clerk shall send a copy of this notice to the treasurer of
the institution having custody of the plaintiff.
motion for the Court to order the Bristol county
Sheriff's Office to provide a certified account statement
(Docket Entry No. 6) shall be terminated as moot.
claims against Hodgson shall be dismissed without prejudice
and Hodgson shall be terminated as a party to this action.
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2)
and 1915A,  the Court concludes that Ramos has
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted with
regard to Hodgson. The Court construes Ramos's complaint
as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (``§
1983") for the violations of federal constitutional
rights. In the context of a § 1983 claim, "only
those individuals who participated in the conduct that
deprived the plaintiff of his rights can be held
liable." Cepero-Rivera v. Fagundo, 414 F.3d
124, 129 (1st Cir. 2005). In other words, a supervisory
employer cannot be held liable under § 1983 based solely
on the misconduct of a subordinate; the supervisor must have
had some form of direct involvement in the alleged
misconduct. See id. A supervisor's failure to
train subordinates who commit constitutional violations may
constitute direct involvement for purposes of § 1983,
but only when "the complaint plausibly alleges that [the
supervisor] was deliberately indifferent to the grave risk of
harm that [his subordinate] posed." Saldivar v.
Racine, 818 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2016). Here, Ramos
does not allege that Hodgson was aware of any risk of harm
posed by Cardoso or any other facts demonstrating a reckless
or callous indifference by Hodgson to the constitutional
rights of others. See Gaudreault v. Municipality of
Salem, 923 F.2d 203, 209 (1st Cir. 1990).
Clerk shall issue summons for Cardoso. Ramos shall serve the
summons, complaint, and this order upon Cardoso in accordance
with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because Ramos is proceeding in forma pauperis, he
may ask the United States Marshals Service ("USMS")
to complete service with all costs to be advanced by the
United States. If so asked by Ramos, the USMS shall serve a
copy of the summons, complaint, and this order upon Cardoso
as directed by the plaintiff. Ramos is responsible for
providing the USMS all copies for service and for completing
a USM-285 form. The Clerk shall provide Ramos with a USM-285
form and instructions for service by the USMS.
Ramos shall have 90 days from the date of the issuance of the
summons to complete service. Failure to complete service
within 90 days may result in dismissal of the action.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); Local Rule 4.1 (D. Mass.).
 These statutes authorize a federal
court to dismiss an in forma pauperis or prisoner
complaint sua sponte if the claims therein are
frivolous, malicious, 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)(B), l9l5A(b). In conducting this
review, the Court liberally construes the ...