Latham v. Brown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) LINCOLN LATHAM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil No. 23-cv-12033-ADB ) TYREEK BROWN, Speaker of Favre ) Street in Mattapan, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BURROUGHS, D.J.

Plaintiff Lincoln Latham’s (“Latham”) “Petition for Restraining-Order against the Defendant” (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The instant motion is the first-filed document in this matter. The Clerk’s Office assigned a case number for the convenience of the Court, but Latham has not commenced an action because a complaint has not been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”). “In the absence of a complaint . . . setting out the basis for jurisdiction, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant either a temporary restraining order (‘TRO’) or a preliminary injunction.” Lowenthal v. Massachusetts, No. 14-13631-GAO, 2014 WL 5285615, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 14, 2014) (quoting Greene v. Phila. Hous. Auth., No. 11–MC–60, 2011 WL 1833011 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 2011)); Latimore v. Boston Police Dep’t, No. 14-13685-FDS, 2014 WL 4965867, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 1, 2014). Accordingly, the motion is denied. Because it is unclear whether Latham intended to file a new civil action, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to let Latham decide whether he wishes to file a new action and incur the significant filing and administrative fees in connection therewith. See Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016) (holding multiple filing fees are due simultaneously on a per case basis).

The Clerk is directed to file a separate order of dismissal without prejudice and close the case. No filing fee is assessed. SO ORDERED. September 7, 2023 /s/ Allison D. Burroughs ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE