Howell v. Cambridge Public Library

D. Massachusetts

Howell v. Cambridge Public Library

DecidedJanuary 23, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-13136

StatusUnknown

This text of Howell v. Cambridge Public Library (Howell v. Cambridge Public Library) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howell v. Cambridge Public Library, (D. Mass. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) CURTIS HOWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-13136-MJJ ) CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

January 23, 2024 JOUN, J. The Court finds that Plaintiff Curtis Howell (“Mr. Howell”) is unable to pay the filing fee and ALLOWS the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2]. If a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must dismiss a complaint when the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). “A complaint is frivolous . . .‘if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’’” Miller v. Kennebec Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., 54 F.3d 764 (1st Cir. 1995) quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992) (citations omitted). Here, the Complaint is premised upon Mr. Howell suffering from a “brain computer interface and brain mapping, motor-electrode mapping.” [Doc. No. 1]. While the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Howell’s belief in his claims, the Complaint, read generously, does not meet the minimal screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See e.g., Punch v. Victoria Cnty. Jail Med. Dep't, No. 6:22-CV-00022, 2023 WL 5613411, at *16 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2023); Dwyer v. United Kingdom Gen. Commun. H.Q., No. 22-CV-7171 (LTS), 2022 WL 15523479, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2022); Scott v. F.B.I., No. 4:21-CV-01057, 2021 WL 3578318, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 15, 2021). Because it is “crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile,” Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002), this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk is directed to

enter a separate Order of Dismissal and CLOSE this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Myong J. Joun United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) CURTIS HOWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-13136-MJJ ) CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

January 23, 2024 JOUN, J. The Court finds that Plaintiff Curtis Howell (“Mr. Howell”) is unable to pay the filing fee and ALLOWS the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2]. If a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must dismiss a complaint when the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). “A complaint is frivolous . . .‘if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’’” Miller v. Kennebec Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., 54 F.3d 764 (1st Cir. 1995) quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992) (citations omitted). Here, the Complaint is premised upon Mr. Howell suffering from a “brain computer interface and brain mapping, motor-electrode mapping.” [Doc. No. 1]. While the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Howell’s belief in his claims, the Complaint, read generously, does not meet the minimal screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See e.g., Punch v. Victoria Cnty. Jail Med. Dep't, No. 6:22-CV-00022, 2023 WL 5613411, at *16 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2023); Dwyer v. United Kingdom Gen. Commun. H.Q., No. 22-CV-7171 (LTS), 2022 WL 15523479, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2022); Scott v. F.B.I., No. 4:21-CV-01057, 2021 WL 3578318, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 15, 2021). Because it is “crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile,” Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002), this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk is directed to

enter a separate Order of Dismissal and CLOSE this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Myong J. Joun United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Howell v. Cambridge Public Library, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-cambridge-public-library-mad-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack