Perez v. Springfield Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedAugust 19, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-30079
StatusUnknown

This text of Perez v. Springfield Police Department (Perez v. Springfield Police Department) 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
Perez v. Springfield Police Department, (D. Mass. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) MARGARITA PEREZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 24-30079-KAR ) DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERTSON, U.S.M.J.

Pro se plaintiff Margarita Perez (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), DCF caseworker Cassie Dawn, and the Springfield Police Department, alleging that the defendants are responsible for her children being removed from her custody or otherwise being unlawfully separated from her. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the in forma pauperis motion and direct Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. I. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Upon review of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently show that she is without income or assets to pay the $405 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion. II. Review of the Complaint Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, her complaint is subject to a preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal courts to 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 Plaintiff is representing herself, the Court construes her complaint more liberally than a pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).1

As set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and directs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint if she wishes to proceed with this action. A. “Short and Plain Statement of the Claim” A complaint must comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), which requires that a complaint include a “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The “fundamental purpose” of this pleading rule “is to protect a defendant’s inalienable right to know in advance the nature of the cause of action being asserted

against him.” Martinez v. Petrenko, 792 F.3d 173, 179 (1st Cir. 2015 (quoting Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2008)); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“short and plain” statement of the claim must provide a defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). This means that a pleading needs to contain “enough detail to provide a defendant with ‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,’” Silverstrand Invs. v. AMAG Pharm.,

1 The Court notes that the text “tribal counselor ra dias deapocalypse bey” is written below Plaintiff’s name in the title of the complaint. It is unclear who “ra dias deapocalypse bey” is and what role this person has in the litigation. While Plaintiff may represent herself in this action, she cannot be represented by someone who is not a licensed attorney, and any such person cannot file a pleading or other document in her name and cannot appear on her behalf in court. Inc., 707 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)) (alteration in original), or, in other words, the statement of the claim “must ‘at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why,’” Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v.

Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004)). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth a “short and plain” statement of her claim. She has provided very little concrete information about her claim. Plaintiff submitted her complaint using a form titled “Complaint for a Civil Action,” which form the Administrative Office of the United States Courts offers. Under the section of this form titled “Statement of Claim,” the litigant is directed to “[s]tate how each defendant was involved and what each defendant did that caused the plaintiff harm or violated the plaintiff’s rights, including the dates and places of that involvement or conduct.” Compl. at 4. The litigant is also instructed, “If more than one claim is asserted, number each claim and write a short and plain statement of each claim in a separate paragraph. Attached additional pages if needed.” Id.

In this field, Plaintiff wrote: “[F]or years the DCF Department of children and families [has] been making false allegations against me to take my children and I will win the case [and] get my children back just for the DCF to make another false allegation just to take my children again infringing on my US constitutional protected rights 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.” Id. Plaintiff attached to the form complaint twenty-eight pages of typed text that do not offer any specific factual allegations about her claim. In these pages, Plaintiff sets forth different versions of her general claim of false allegations about her children, having her children taken away from her, and violations of constitutional rights, but the pleading does not “set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why.” Calvi, 470 F.3d at 430 (quoting Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d at 68). These pages of the complaint also discuss various Supreme Court cases and even announce, “Before you or multiple Public Official(s) can proceed any further you Public Official(s) will need to provide a copy of your oath of office,” and that [f]ailure to provide a copy of proof of office you can and

Will be punished under [federal law].” Id. at 16-17. Plaintiff dedicates at least ten pages to reciting federal criminal statutes, id. at 18-23, 25-28, and she poses forty-six questions that appear to be directed at the defendants, including: “Are you aware that it is a high crime to break your oath of office?” (Question #7); “Are you aware that taking children from their true birth mother and father under any reason is infringement on the true birth mother[’s] and true birth father[’s] . . . US Constitutional protected rights?” (Question #25): “Are you aware that the US dollars are nothing more than debt notes?” (Question #31); and “Are you aware that using legalese on anyone is a crime?” (Question #46), id. at 28-33. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this lawsuit, she her complaint must meet the threshold requirement of setting forth a “short and plain” statement of her claim in which she identifies in a

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

Related

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Calvi v. Knox County
470 F.3d 422 (First Circuit, 2006)
Ruiz Rivera v. PEIZER PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
521 F.3d 76 (First Circuit, 2008)
CONNECTU LLC v. Zuckerberg
522 F.3d 82 (First Circuit, 2008)
Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset
640 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2011)
Martinez v. Petrenko
792 F.3d 173 (First Circuit, 2015)
Newman v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
901 F.3d 19 (First Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Perez v. Springfield Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-springfield-police-department-mad-2024.