Little v. Massachusetts Department of Children and Families

• Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-10531
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LAFREDERICK LITTLE, * * Petitioner, * * v. * Civil Action 25-cv-10531-IT * MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF * CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, * * Respondent. *

ORDER

March 25, 2025

TALWANI, D.J.

Pro se Petitioner LaFrederick Little (“Petitioner”) has filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus [Doc. No. 1] in which he alleges that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Family Services (“DCF”) wrongfully has custody of his children. Petitioner states that he brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pet. ¶ 2. Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] and an Emergency Motion for Immediate Review [Doc. No. 3]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, DISMISS this action, and deny as moot the emergency motion. I. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Upon review of the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2], the Court concludes that Petitioner has adequately demonstrated he is without income or assets to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. II. Review of the Petition Because Petitioner is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may conduct a preliminary review of his Petition and dismiss the pleading if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court construes Petitioner’s pleading liberally

because he is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). According to Petitioner, his children have been in the custody of DCF since April 27, 2023, when they were taken from Petitioner’s home without his permission. Petitioner alleges that, in contravention of his right to due process and M.G.L. ch. 119, § 24, he was not afforded a court hearing concerning DCF’s custody of his children within 72 hours of the agency’s removal of his children. Petitioner represents that he appeared in court on May 1, 2023, “but the hearing was delayed by the judge, and no order was issued regarding the return of the children.” Pet. ¶ 3. According to Petitioner, “[t]he 72-hour hearing did not take place until June 5, 2023, well beyond the statutory deadline.” Id. Petitioner alleges that “[d]espite filing motions to dismiss due to these due process violations, the Worcester Juvenile Court refused to act, allowing DCF to

continue holding Petitioner’s children without lawful justification.” Id. Petitioner asserts that he “has no other adequate remedy except mandamus because the Worcester Juvenile Court has refused to rule on this issue.” Id. ¶ 4. Petitioner asks this Court to “Issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling DCF to immediately return Petitioner’s children,” and “[d]eclare that DCF’s continued custody of the children is unlawful due to due process violations.” Id. ¶ 5. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Petitioner seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that a “person” acting under the color of state law who deprives an individual of their federal rights “shall be liable to the party injured.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, in this context, a state is not a “person” subject to suit under this statute. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). DCF is not otherwise subject to suit under the alleged facts because of the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the

United Status Constitution, a state (including its agencies, such as DCF) has immunity from suit in a federal court unless (1) the state has waived its immunity; or (2) Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity. See Va. Off. for Protection & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 253-54 (2011). Here, Massachusetts has not waived, nor has Congress abrogated, the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to Petitioner’s claims. The federal mandamus statute invoked by Petitioner allows a federal district court to exercise jurisdiction over an action “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. However, this statute is inapplicable to this action because DCF is a state agency, not an agency of the United States. Although the federal All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or

appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions,” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the statute itself is not a “font of jurisdiction,” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 913 (2009). Where, as here, there is no underlying claim over which a federal court may exercise its jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) has no relevance. See id. at 911 (“As the text of the All Writs Act recognizes, a court’s power to issue any form of relief—extraordinary or otherwise—is contingent on that court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy.”). III. Conclusion In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders: 1. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED. 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 3. The Emergency Motion for Immediate Review [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Indira Talwani United States District Judge Dated: March 25, 2025