Jamimani v. Diener et al

Filing 9

Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The motion (Docket No. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; The motion (Docket No. 3) for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice;The motions (Docket Nos. 5, 6 ) to amend the complaint are allowed; If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must, within 35 days of the date of this Order, file an Amended Complaint curing the pleading deficiencies noted herein. If he fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for reasons stated above; and No summonses or subpoenas shall issue pending further Order of the Court.(Hourihan, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
CHOSEN ONE JAMIMANI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 12-10201-DJC
)
ROBERT B. DIENER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CASPER, J.

May 16, 2012

For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) allows plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma
pauperis; (2) denies without prejudice the motion for appointment of counsel; (3) allows the motions
to amend the complaint; (4) directs that this action shall be dismissed unless plaintiff files one
comprehensive amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies noted herein; and (5) orders that
no summonses or subpoenas shall issue until further Order of the Court.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff Chosen One Jamimani, a self-described homeless minister,
filed a handwritten complaint seeking 39 trillion dollars for allegedly being persecuted for his
religious beliefs. His complaint consists primarily of a listing of the names of the four defendants
[President Obama, Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino and Dr. Diener at Bridgewater State Hospital]
as well as factual allegations that can be found in a paragraph that reads as follows:
The above named defendants chose to ignore [plaintiff’s] pain + suffering thus becoming
[derelict] in their dutys (sic) as officers of the Commonwealth and the U.S. Constitution.
The petitioner has been denied housing, employment, liberty due to unholy members of the
Commonwealth bringing untrue allegations into court from 1972 - 2012 and defaming
[plaintiff’s] character as the (Holy Minister) which resulted in beatings, torture, with malice

and forethought (in plain view) causing pain + suffering of the worst kind to be visited upon
him.
See Complaint, page 2.
On February 7, 2012, plaintiff filed his first motion to amend, see Docket No. 5, in which
he seeks to add the allegation that “the Commonwealth has defamed [plaintiff’s] character with
(Defamation of Character) by saying he suffers with mental illness and in doing so testing the (faith
of his religion of the Icnhe Metitte Throne) thereby using him as a human guinea pig in mental,
physical, spiritual, emotional medical experiments of (socialology (sic) engineering ) thereby
afflicting him with extreme pain and suffering.” See Am. Compl., page 2.
On February 28, 2012, plaintiff filed his second motion to amend, see Docket No. 6, in which
he seeks compensation from the pharmaceutical company that produced Risperdone because of the
severe side effects he suffered when it was administered to him by the Commonwealth in August
2010 and November 2011. See Sec. Am. Compl.
DISCUSSION
I.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis stating that he is homeless and that his
sole source of income is from MassHealth. On this record, the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
is granted.
II.

Review

Because plaintiff seeks to file this action without prepayment of the filing fee, the Court will
review his complaint to determine if it satisfies the substantive requirements of the federal in forma
pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 of title 28 authorizes federal courts to dismiss
actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the action lacks an
2

arguable basis either in law or in fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), or if the action
fails to state a claim on 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); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992).
III.

The Complaint is Subject to Dismissal

In conducting this review, the Court reads plaintiff’s complaint and motions to amend with
“an extra degree of solicitude,” Rodi v. Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir.1991), due to his pro
se status, see id.; see also Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155, 158 n.l (1st Cir. 1997) (noting obligation
to construe pro se pleadings liberally) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594,
595-96 (1972)). In large measure, the complaint is incomprehensible and fails to comply with the
pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include (1) “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a). Here, plaintiff names four defendants in the complaint. In his motions to amend, he seeks
to add the Commonwealth and an unidentified pharmaceutical company as defendants. However,
he merely lists the defendants and has not alleged sufficient facts concerning any of these
defendants.
To the extent plaintiff seeks to assert a civil rights claim, Section 1983 requires three
elements for liability: deprivation of a right, a causal connection between the actor and the
deprivation, and state action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3

A.

The Claims Against the Mayor, Governor and President

The Mayor, as well as the President and Governor, cannot be liable under Section 1983
solely because they may have employed Dr. Diener.

A plaintiff must plead the personal

involvement of each defendant in a violation of Section 1983 because there is no respondeat superior
liability in Section 1983 cases. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct.
2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, "a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official
defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The law in this Circuit before
Iqbal was that a plaintiff may state a claim against a supervisory defendant in a Section 1983 case
by depicting "a scenario that would permit a fact-based inference that [the supervisory defendants]
were guilty of ‘conduct that amount[ed] to condonation or tacit authorization' of wrongdoing."
Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 78 (1st Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has not identified any specific actions taken by Mayor Menino, nor the Governor
or President. See Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F.Supp. 1033, 1045 (D. Mass. 1994) ("[A] defendant
supervisor cannot be held liable for the constitutional violations of a subordinate merely by virtue
of the defendant's status as supervisor"). Thus, the claims against the Mayor, Governor1 and
President are subject to dismissal.
B.

The Claims Against Dr. Diener

The Eighth Amendment prohibits Cruel and Unusual Punishment and "embodies broad and

1

The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes plaintiff's claims against Deval Patrick, as
Governor of Massachusetts. Plaintiff has failed to establish a sufficient connection between any
actions taken by him and the harms alleged.
4

idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency . . . ." Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The "wanton" infliction of pain,
meaning the unnecessary infliction of pain on a prisoner, either intentionally or because of deliberate
indifference of the responsible prison official, violates the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care, an
inmate must allege that the official responsible for his care has intentionally ignored a serious
medical need or has been deliberately indifferent to it.
To the extent plaintiff alleges that Dr. Diener ignored, and/or caused, his pain and suffering,
he has failed to state a claim under Section 1983. Courts consistently have refused to create
constitutional claims out of disagreements between prisoners and doctors about the proper course
of a prisoner's medical treatment or to conclude that simple medical malpractice rises to the level
of cruel and unusual punishment. See e.g. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); DesRosiers
v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (same). Only "deliberate indifference" to the serious
medical needs of prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Deliberate
indifference is "conduct that offends evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."
DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 18 (citations omitted). Here, plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege facts
demonstrating that Dr. Diener has been "deliberately indifferent" to a medical need.
C.

Claim Against Unidentified Pharmaceutical Company

In his Second Motion to Amend, plaintiff seeks to assert a claim against the company that
produced Risperdone because of the severe side effects that he suffered in 2010 and 2011. See
Docket No. 6. It is not entirely clear whether Plaintiff intends to set forth a claim based on the
failure to warn or some other theory of liability. In order to fully pursue his claim against the

5

producer of Risperdone, he will need to discover the name of the manufacturer and then set forth
sufficient facts to state a products liability claim. In the products liability area, courts have routinely
held that a manufacturer of a drug has a duty to warn physicians, and in some cases, warn patients,
about the dangers of the administration of a drug. See In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, 618 F. Supp. 2d 96, 110 (D. Mass. 2009) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint which includes the name of
the now-unidentified company as well as the factual allegations against the company.
IV.

Conclusion

Here, the original complaint and motions to amend fail to comply with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a civil rights claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Instead of dismissing the complaint immediately, the Court will permit plaintiff to
file a comprehensive Amended Complaint curing the pleading deficiencies noted herein within 35
days of this Order. If plaintiff elects to do this, the amended complaint must comport with the
requirements of Rule 8(a) and for every defendant that he names, he must identify particular
misconduct by that defendant. If no comprehensive amended complaint is filed, this case will be
dismissed for the reasons stated above.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1)

The motion (Docket No. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2)

The motion (Docket No. 3) for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice;

3)

The motions (Docket Nos. 5, 6) to amend the complaint are allowed;

4)

If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must, within 35 days of the date of
this Order, file an Amended Complaint curing the pleading deficiencies noted herein.
6

If he fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for reasons stated above; and
5)

No summonses or subpoenas shall issue pending further Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Denise J. Casper
Denise J. Casper
United States District Judge

7