Barnett v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al
Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: for the failure to satisfy the filing fee requirements of this court, the failure to comply with the directives contained in the Memorandum and Order, and for the substantive reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 4), this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.(PSSA, 1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CUSHAW BANACEK BARNETT,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-10038-DPW
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 11, 2013
On January 7, 2013, plaintiff Cushaw Banacek Barnett filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages. He
alleges that he is being held unlawfully in jail under a void
federal criminal judgment.
He also asserts a claim for denial of
access to the courts.
On January 17, 2013, I issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket
No. 4) directing plaintiff to pay the filing fee or to file an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees within 21 days.
I also directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint setting
forth his claims in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and to demonstrate good cause within 42 days
why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth
in the Memorandum and Order.
Those reasons included the failure
to set forth plausible claims under Rule 8 with respect to the
identification of the proper defendant(s), sovereign immunity as
a bar to his claims for money damages, the bar to claims of false
imprisonment based on the favorable termination rule, and the bar
to his claims because the Essex County Jail is not a suable
To date, plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or to seek
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, he has failed to
file an amended complaint and a show cause response as directed,
and has not sought an extension of time for compliance.
directives contained in the Memorandum and Order, and for the
substantive reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket
No. 4), this action will be DISMISSED in its entirety.
Based on the above, it is hereby Ordered that this action is
DISMISSED in its entirety.1
/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h).
For purposes of determining the applicability of the three-strike
rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in connection with any future
litigation by plaintiff, I deem the dismissal of this action to
be a decision on the merits for the failure to state claims upon
which relief may be granted.