Cardenas v. Summers

Filing 6

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL: for the substantive reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 5) outlining the legal impediments to Cardenas's complaint, and for the failure of Cardenas to comply with the directives of this court, it is hereby Ordered that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED in its entirety.(PSSA, 1)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-12066-RGS TOMMY CABRAL CARDENAS, v. LAWRENCE SUMMERS, FORMER PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL January 24, 2012 STEARNS, D.J. On October 14, 2011, plaintiff Tommy Cabral Cardenas (“Cardenas”) filed a complaint against the former President of Harvard University alleging retaliation and discrimination. It was not in proper form and the Clerk’s Office did not accept the complaint for filing. Thereafter, on November 22, 2011, Cardenas re-filed his complaint, naming as the defendant Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard University. On December 16, 2011, this court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 5) granting Cardenas’s in forma pauperis motion and directing him to file an Amended Complaint within 35 days that comported with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cardenas also was required to demonstrate that his claims were not frivolous as time barred. To date, Cardenas failed to file an Amended Complaint as directed, and the time period for doing so has expired. Accordingly, for the substantive reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 5) outlining the legal impediments to Cardenas’s complaint, and for the failure of Cardenas to comply with the directives of this court, it is hereby Ordered that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED in its entirety. SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?