Morgan v. Morgan et al

Filing 11

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) is ADOPTED in its entirety; This action is DISMISSED in its entirety; andPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), this Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of the dismissal of this action would not be taken in good faith.(PSSA, 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
PATRICK E. MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12395-WGY

MARY MORGAN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
YOUNG, U.S.D.J.
I.

Introduction
On December 8, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bowler issued a Memorandum and Order

(Docket No. 5) directing plaintiff to demonstrate good cause why his action should not be
dismissed. Primarily, the Court found that plaintiff’s Complaint was incoherent and did not
contain any underlying factual allegations to assert plausible claims against the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Governor Charles Baker, the United States, and Mary Morgan, a
private individual. Further, the Court noted that: (1) there was no complete diversity for
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; (2) there were no plausible civil rights claims against
defendant Mary Morgan, presumed to be a private citizen not acting under color of law; (3) there
were no plausible civil rights claims against Governor Baker or Sylvia Matthews Burwell
because respondeat superior liability does not apply to civil rights actions; (4) the claims against
federal and state officials for monetary damages based on their official capacities were barred by
sovereign immunity; and (5) the United States was entitled to sovereign immunity from suit
because no waiver of immunity existed.
On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a Response (Docket No. 7), seeking a restraining order
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, similar to the one unsuccessfully raised before Judge Talwani in
the case Morgan v. Middlesex Sheriff’s Office, et al., Civil Action No. 14-10659-IT. Upon
review of the Response, on January 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bowler issued a Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 8) directing reassignment of this action to a District Judge. She

also recommended that this action be dismissed in its entirety because plaintiff had failed to
demonstrate sufficient cause why his claims should not be dismissed, and because he failed to
address the various legal impediments outlined in her prior Memorandum and Order (Docket No.
5).
On January 23, 2017, plaintiff filed his Show Cause Response (Docket No. 10), which
this Court construes as his Objections to the Report and Recommendation (“Objection”). The
Objection is unintelligible, containing incomplete sentences and widespread accusations of
governmental misconduct, without any underlying facts in support. For example, he alleges, in
part:
Mr. Morgan has suffered and received substantial consequences and injuries
pursuant to these acts, and/or omissions by the government being held
accountable for such as tortuous incidences of sensory deprivation, poisoning, use
and abuse of Nano technological innovation unwittingly and unpermitted [sic]also
radiological biological and chemical engineering and experimental Warfare and
War Crimes widely and profoundly used and abused both in the general public
and penal institutions. . . . This type of behavior causes undue and unjustified
challenges for the plaintiff’s children and their father contravening laws and
impeding on paternal obligations and society norms.
Objection (Docket No. 10 at ¶¶ 9-10). Plaintiff further claims that he is unsure of the whole
nature of the proceedings and is lacking specific information because it is either classified or is
otherwise unavailable, in contravention to international laws and commerce between foreign
nations, countries or tribes. Id. at ¶ 12. Thus, he claims there is room for review in the
international criminal court at Peace Palace. Id.
As an additional matter, it appears that plaintiff seeks to assert alleged governmental
wrongdoings on behalf of his children.
II.

Discussion
Upon review of all of the pleadings, this Court finds plaintiff’s Objection to be without

merit and further finds it to be insufficient to demonstrate why this action should not be
dismissed. First, to the extent that he seeks to assert claims on behalf of his children, he may not
do so because he is not a duly-licensed attorney admitted to practice in this Court. See
Massachusetts District Court Local Rule 83.5.5(b) (“An individual appearing pro se may not
represent any other party and may not authorize any other individual who is not a member of the
bar of this district to appear on his or her behalf.”).
2

Second, plaintiff failed to address any of the legal impediments discussed in Magistrate
Bowler’s Memorandum and Order; rather, his Objections simply serve to obfuscate matters even
more. Plaintiff has had two opportunities to set forth plausible claims and a jurisdictional basis
for his claims. The Court considers it would be an exercise in futility and an impermissible
waste of judicial resources to permit any further opportunities to plaintiff.
Accordingly, this Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation to dismiss this
action, and will DISMISS this action. Further, because this Court considers that no reasonable
person would believe this action has any merit based on the pleadings, this Court will CERTIFY
that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Such a certification prohibits in forma status
on appeal even though Plaintiff has been found to be indigent. This Court finds this action to be
frivolous as that term is used in legal parlance, and that any appeal would be one that plainly
does not deserve additional judicial attention. Plaintiff may seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
III.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:

1.

The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) is ADOPTED in its entirety;

2.

This action is DISMISSED in its entirety; and

3.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), this Court
CERTIFIES that any appeal of the dismissal of this action would not be taken in good
faith.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: February 1, 2017

3