Irma Matos v. City of Lowell, et al.

D. Massachusetts

Irma Matos v. City of Lowell, et al.

District Court, D. Massachusetts·Decided August 20, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-12321·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) IRMA MATOS, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. v. ) 26-12321-BEM )

CITY OF LOWELL, et al., )

) Defendants. ) ) )

ORDER

MURPHY, J. On May 21, 2026, Irma Matos filed a pro se complaint against the City of Lowell, the Lowell Police Department and the Lowell District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of her constitutional rights. Dkt. 1. It appears that this action is brought against the same defendants and raises the same claims asserted in Matos v City of Lowell. et al., No. 26-11941-IT (filed Apr. 30 2026). Except for the date of signing, the complaint filed in the instant action is identical to the complaint filed in No. 26-11941-IT. Federal courts possess certain “‘inherent powers,’ not conferred by rule or statute, ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). The “first-filed doctrine,” or “first-filed rule,” generally gives a presumption of precedence to the first of two duplicative actions proceeding in different federal courts. Quality One Wireless, LLC v. Goldie Group, LLC, 37 F.Supp.3d 536, 540 (D. Mass. 2014) (citing Cianbro Corp. v. Curran—Lavoie, Inc., 814 F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1987)). Here, the Court finds that it would be appropriate to have Ms. Matos’ claims resolved in the first-filed action, Matos v City of Lowell. et al., No. 26-11941-IT (pending). Thus, this action will be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:

1) The complaint is dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority. 2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is denied as moot. 3) The clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal. So Ordered.

/s/ Brian E. Murphy Brian E. Murphy Dated: August 20, 2026 Judge, United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) IRMA MATOS, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. v. ) 26-12321-BEM )

CITY OF LOWELL, et al., )

) Defendants. ) ) )

ORDER

MURPHY, J. On May 21, 2026, Irma Matos filed a pro se complaint against the City of Lowell, the Lowell Police Department and the Lowell District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of her constitutional rights. Dkt. 1. It appears that this action is brought against the same defendants and raises the same claims asserted in Matos v City of Lowell. et al., No. 26-11941-IT (filed Apr. 30 2026). Except for the date of signing, the complaint filed in the instant action is identical to the complaint filed in No. 26-11941-IT. Federal courts possess certain “‘inherent powers,’ not conferred by rule or statute, ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). The “first-filed doctrine,” or “first-filed rule,” generally gives a presumption of precedence to the first of two duplicative actions proceeding in different federal courts. Quality One Wireless, LLC v. Goldie Group, LLC, 37 F.Supp.3d 536, 540 (D. Mass. 2014) (citing Cianbro Corp. v. Curran—Lavoie, Inc., 814 F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1987)). Here, the Court finds that it would be appropriate to have Ms. Matos’ claims resolved in the first-filed action, Matos v City of Lowell. et al., No. 26-11941-IT (pending). Thus, this action will be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:

1) The complaint is dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority. 2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is denied as moot. 3) The clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal. So Ordered.

/s/ Brian E. Murphy Brian E. Murphy Dated: August 20, 2026 Judge, United States District Court

Irma Matos v. City of Lowell, et al., (D. Mass. 2026).

Pincite

Irma Matos v. City of Lowell, et al. (Irma Matos v. City of Lowell, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related