Morrison v. Ceres, Inc. et al

Filing 38

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered finding as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss; the Clerk is directed to terminate this case. (Woodlock, Douglas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CATHY MORRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CERES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-11401-DPW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 29, 2013
The pro se plaintiff in this case is proceeding in forma
pauperis against her former employer and certain individuals
alleging workplace misconduct by her coworkers.

When I stayed

proceedings while I took the defendants’ motions to dismiss under
advisement, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

The First Circuit issued mandate

yesterday dismissing that interlocutory appeal and the mandate
was docketed in this court today.

I will now act on the

defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s disjointed and barely comprehensible Amended
Complaint alludes in a generalized fashion to the racial
backgrounds of her co-workers but the significance of race has
not been pled with sufficient specificity to demonstrate an
actionable claim by the plaintiff under any federal employment

-1-

discrimination law. In the absence of such a federal claim, this
lawsuit between non-diverse parties should not proceed further in
this court.
This court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and cannot
act on the various concerns the plaintiff has about the people
around her in the absence of some jurisdictional grant.

It

appears from correspondence submitted since the filing of her
appeal that the plaintiff has a misunderstanding about the
capacity of this court to provide remedies for her problems.

For

example, in a letter docketed March 4, 2013 (#32), the plaintiff
inquired: “Can you please order Pamela Hentley Lewis and Attorney
John N. Flanagan to remove whatever has gotten into the walls of
the house?

There is a squirrel that has gotten into the walls.”

This court does not have a roving commission to investigate and
resolve problems and disputes generally.

In the absence of a

showing that the plaintiff has a claim upon which this court can
grant relief, the court may not be drawn into plaintiff’s
disputes.

There has been no such showing here.

Accordingly, after full consideration of the plaintiff’s
various articulations of the claims she seeks to make, I treat
defendant’s initial motion (#6) to dismiss as moot and GRANT
defendant’s motion (#14) to dismiss plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint.

The Clerk is directed to terminate this case.

/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-