Pratt v. Grondolsky

Filing 32

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 23 Motion to Dismiss; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 28 Report and Recommendations.; finding as moot 31 Motion for Extension of Time (Zierk, Marsha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14270-RGS
KYLE RICHARD PRATT
v.
JEFF GRONDOLSKY
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 5, 2016
STEARNS, D.J.
I agree with Magistrate Judge Kelley’s conclusion that Petitioner Kyle
Pratt’s Complaint fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. While Pratt’s 193page Complaint (which includes 185 pages of exhibits) contains numerous
legal references and factual allegations, it fails to provide any context that
would permit Respondent Warden Grondolsky to determine the nature of
any specific claim and whether Pratt is plausibly entitled to relief. See
Cortes-Rivera v. Dep’t of Corrs., 626 F.3d 21, 28-29 (1st Cir. 2010), quoting
Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1171 (1st Cir. 1995) (“The
fundamental purpose of our pleadings rules is to protect a defendant’s
‘inalienable right to know in advance the nature of the cause of action being
asserted against him.’”).

However,

I

part

company

with

Magistrate

Judge

Kelley’s

recommendation that Pratt be granted leave to file an Amended Complaint.
Pratt filed his habeas petition in November of 2014. On March 5, 2014, the
court granted Pratt’s motion for leave to amend his petition. On June 18,
2015, the court entered a pretrial Order requiring that any further
amendments to the pleadings be made by August 3, 2015. After discovery
closed, on October 14, 2015, Warden Grondolsky moved to dismiss the
petition. Pratt requested sixty days to oppose, which the court allowed (until
December 14, 2015). Notwithstanding, Pratt failed to file any opposition. On
January 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report, recommending
dismissal, but also granting yet another leave to amend. On February 4,
2016, Pratt filed a motion, asking for sixty days to file an Amended
Complaint. At this stage of the pleadings, this request comes too late,
particularly in light of the petitioner’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss
(despite being given an extra 45 days to do so) or to move to amend instead.
See Lefebvre v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 830 F.2d 417, 419 (1st Cir.
1987) (“While pro se pleadings are viewed less stringently, a petitioner who
elects to proceed pro se must comply with the applicable procedural and
substantive rules of law.”).

2

The Magstrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED in part, and the petition is
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk will enter judgment for the
Respondent and close the case.1
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner is advised that any request for the issuance of a Certificate of
Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 of the court’s Order dismissing
his petition is also DENIED, the court seeing no meritorious or substantial
basis supporting an appeal.
1

3