Lubin v. State of New Hampshire et al

Filing 9

Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, in accordance with this Court's order dated December 11, 2012, and the plaintiff not having shown good cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), it is ORDERED that the within action be and it is hereby DISMISSED for the reasons stated above, without prejudice.(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ARTHUR LUBIN,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., )
Defendants.
)

C.A. No 12-12215-JLT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TAURO, D.J.
By Memorandum and Order dated December 11, 2012, plaintiff
Arthur Lubin was ordered to show cause why this action should not
be dismissed, or in the alternative, to file an Amended Complaint
curing the pleading deficiencies of his original complaint.

The

December 11, 2012 Memorandum and Order recognized that plaintiff
complained that he had been subject to discrimination, however,
he failed to clearly identify the defendants and failed to
provide a viable legal basis for his claims.
To the extent his complaint is construed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the Court explained that a claim against the State
of New Hampshire would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

As

to a Section 1983 claim against the City of Manchester, plaintiff
must have alleged that the municipality had an unconstitutional
policy or custom.
In reply to the December 11th Order, plaintiff filed over
100 pages of documents.

See Docket No. 8.

On the first page of

the documents, plaintiff simply writes:
Please find supporting documents for claim as described in
C.A. No. 12-12215-JLT. I wish to present this document

package with a chronological statement.
Sincerely, Arthur Lubin
Plaintiff’s document package does not contain a
chronological statement and consists primarily of court documents
from a New Hampshire state court.

I find that plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate good cause why this action should not be
dismissed.
ORDER
ACCORDINGLY, in accordance with this Court's order dated
December 11, 2012, and the plaintiff not having shown good cause
why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), it is ORDERED that the within action be and it is
hereby DISMISSED for the reasons stated above, without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
February 4, 2013
DATE

/s/ Joseph L. Tauro
JOSEPH L. TAURO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2