Nzaddi v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 16

Judge Richard G. Stearns: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Clerk shall reissue summonses for service of the original complaint on defendants Dinardo and Woods. In accordance with this Court's order dated May 18, 2012, and the plaintiff not h aving shown good cause why the claims against defendants Coakley, Spencer, Ryan, Brockelman, Murphy and the Director of Treatment should not be dismissed, the claims against these six defendants are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. 12-10876-RGS
IKNATON RHAJIK NZADDI
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
January 3, 2013
STEARNS, D.J.
On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff Iknaton Rhajik Nzaddi, a self-described Native-American
and G.I.D. diagnosed inmate,1 filed a Complaint, Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction. See Docket. Plaintiff is serving a life-sentence and is confined to MCI-Shirley
(Medium). Plaintiff alleges that she is a practicing Baha'i and that the defendants denied
her appropriate kosher meals.
By Memorandum and Order dated May 18, 2012, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis was granted, the motion for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction was denied
without prejudice and assessment of the filing fee was deferred. See Docket No. 5. The
clerk issued summonses for service of the complaint on defendants Dinardo and Woods.
See Docket. Plaintiff was directed to demonstrate good cause, in writing, why the claims
against the remaining defendants should not be dismissed. See Docket No. 5. On May
29, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and supplemental show of good cause. See
Docket No. 8.
By Memorandum and Order dated August 9, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff’s

1

In light of the allegation that Plaintiff has Gender Identity Disorder, the Court will
refer to Plaintiff by feminine pronouns.

motion for joinder, assessed an initial filing fee, and directed plaintiff to file a “Second
Amended Complaint.” See Docket No. 13. The Order explained that plaintiff cannot
incorporate by reference the allegations contained in several of plaintiff’s earlier filings. The
Order explained that plaintiff’s second amended complaint must (1) identify each
defendant, (2) contain all of plaintiff’s claims, (3) include a demand for relief, and (4) fully
describe each defendant’s conduct with sufficient factual detail to inform the defendants of
the actions which plaintiff claims are wrongful and which support each purported cause of
action. The clerk mailed a copy of the Order to plaintiff with a copy of “Step by Step: A
Simple Guide to Filing a Civil Action.”
Now before the Court is plaintiff’s two-page pleading entitled “Follow-Up With
Honorable Court’s (CA-12-10876-RGS) Summons/Default, Along with Evidentiary
Updates.” See Docket No. 15. The pleading is written in the form of a letter to the clerk
and attaches a dozen pages of “legal exhibits.” The letter closes with a request for “some
legal assistance from the Honorable Court.” Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff states that “this plaintiff just
wanted to authenticate herewith, in that she feels compelled to make things more lucid, as
her defendants will certainly move to woefully besmirch her character; the plaintiff is
currently in great fear of her safety whereas she was assaulted leaving Shirley-Medium.”
Id. at p. 1. Plaintiff asks for clarification concerning the “21-day time limit for response” to
the summons. Id. at p. 2.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s August 9, 2012 Memorandum and Order.
By Order dated May 18, 2012, plaintiff was advised that her claims against defendants
Coakley, Spencer, Ryan, Brockelman, Murphy and the Director of Treatment were subject
to dismissal. Since May, the Court has issued two orders directing plaintiff to file an
amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Docket Nos. 5, 13. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended
2

complaint and it is unclear whether she served her original complaint on defendants
Dinardo and Woods.

The claims against the remaining defendants will be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the Court will direct the Clerk to reissue summons
for service of the original complaint on defendants Dinardo and Woods.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
1.

The Clerk shall reissue summonses for service of the original complaint on
defendants Dinardo and Woods.

2.

The Clerk shall send the two summonses, the original complaint, and this Order to
the plaintiff, who must thereafter serve the original complaint on defendant Dinardo
and Woods in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The plaintiff
may elect to have service made by the United States Marshal Service. If directed
by the plaintiff to do so, the United States Marshal shall serve the summonses,
complaint, and this Order upon defendants Dinardo and Woods, in the manner
directed by the plaintiff, with all costs of service to be advanced by the United
States. Notwithstanding Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 4.1, the plaintiff shall
have 120 days from the date of this Order to complete service.

3.

In accordance with this Court's order dated May 18, 2012, and the plaintiff not
having shown good cause why the claims against defendants Coakley, Spencer,
Ryan, Brockelman, Murphy and the Director of Treatment should not be dismissed,
the claims against these six defendants are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The Clerk shall terminate these six parties as defendants.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3