Lobari Blackwell v. State Police A5, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-12719
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) LOBARI BLACKWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 25-12719-MJJ v. )

) STATE POLICE A5, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOUN, D.J.

Lobari Blackwell (“Mr. Blackwell”), who is representing himself, has filed a Complaint against “State Police A5” and the Everett Police Department. Mr. Blackwell filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis with his complaint. He later filed two Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and a Supplemental Complaint. Upon review of Mr. Blackwell’s filings, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directs Mr. Blackwell to file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with this action. 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 GRANTS the same. II. Court’s Review of the Complaint Because Mr. Blackwell is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is subject to a preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2), which authorizes a federal court dismiss an action in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis if the action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Mr. Blackwell is not represented by an attorney, the Court construes his complaint more liberally than a pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Mr. Blackwell’s claim consists of a one-sentence allegation that “a violation of rights

occurred” by “enforced laws of the state under the article of the confederation.” [Doc. No. 1 at 3]. He suggests that he is bringing this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Id.]. In his prayer for relief, he asks for damages and “permanent immunity against searches, seizures, and apprehension without a warrant.” [Id.].1 Mr. Blackwell’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it consists solely of a legal conclusion that the defendants violated his rights. It does not give the defendants any notice of the claims against them or show that Mr. Blackwell is entitled to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating that a complaint does not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007))).

The “supplemental complaint” does not cure the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint. In this document, Mr. Blackwell alleges that, during two traffic stops, he was “placed into custody, and transported to headquarters,” that “officers Holland, Young, and Silmon removed [him] from the vehicle,” and that he was “detained and cited.” [Doc. No. 6 at 3].

1 The Court notes that Fourth Amendment does not prohibit any warrantless seizure—rather, it protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV (emphasis added). A traffic stop is a “seizure” of a person, but it is reasonable if “the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred,’” United States v. Reyes, 24 F.4th 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 (1996)). Further, “a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004). Without more, these allegations do not suggest that the defendants or the three identified officers engaged in any misconduct. If Mr. Blackwell wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint that identifies, in non-conclusory language, the alleged misconduct of each defendant. The

factual allegations, treated as true, must show that Mr. Blackwell is entitled to relief from the named defendants under a cognizable legal theory. The amended complaint will supersede the original complaint the supplemental complaint. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders: 1) The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED. 2) If Mr. Blackwell wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint in which he clearly identifies the alleged misconduct of each defendant. Failure to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days will result in dismissal of this action. 3) The Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Doc. Nos. 4, 5] are DENIED.

SO ORDERED. /s/ Myong J. Joun Myong J. Joun United States District Judge Dated: February 10, 2026