Loring v. US Goverment Agencies et al

Filing 11

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 3 Motion for emergency hearing and protective order; granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action shall be dismissed within 35 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order unless plaintiff demonstrates good cause why this action should not be dismissed or files an amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint.(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LORING VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
US GOVERNMENT AGENCY’S
ORGANIZATIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 17-11367-PBS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
July 26, 2017
SARIS, C.D.J.
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denies without
prejudice plaintiff’s motion for emergency hearing and
protective order.

This action shall be dismissed within 35 days

of the date of this Memorandum and Order unless plaintiff
demonstrates good cause why this action should not be dismissed
or files an amended complaint that cures the pleading
deficiencies of the original complaint.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2017, pro se plaintiff Vaughn Loring (“Loring”)
filed a complaint accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff also submitted a one-page motion

that the Clerk entered on the docket as a motion for emergency
hearing and protective order.

The complaint is brought against

more than a dozen defendants, including five state court judges,

seeking equitable relief for alleged violation of plaintiff’s
civil rights.

Plaintiff alleges that in 2011 he was prosecuted

in Attleboro District Court and he contends various state court
judges conspired to bring him to trial.

Plaintiff alleges that

his “residency” was taken from him “by the US government” and
without it, he “can’t get Insurance because [he is] not a
resident.”

The complaint seeks to have this Court enroll

plaintiff in MassHealth, restore his Massachusetts residency and
order the correction of all documents from all involved agencies
and organizations.

He also asks to be placed into “protective

custody considering the severity of the case it involves all
government officials.”
The one-page, emergency motion states that he is
permanently disabled and that his application for MassHealth was
denied.

He contends that his civil rights were violated by the

Attleboro District Court.

Plaintiff fears for his safety for

lack of residency and inability to obtain medical treatment.
DISCUSSION
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s financial disclosures contained in his Motion

for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates that he
lacks funds to pay the filing fee for this action.

2 

Accordingly,

his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is hereby
ALLOWED.
2.

Screening of the Complaint
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his

complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss actions in
which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if
the action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
1915(e)(2);

See 28 U.S.C. §

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992);

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes
the complaint because plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

See

The complaint is

also construed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)
(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”).
Even under a broad reading of the complaint, however, the
Court finds this action is subject to dismissal.

As filed, the

complaint does not comport with the pleading requirements of
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 8(a)

governs the substance of a pleading, and requires a plaintiff to
include in the complaint, inter alia, “a short and plain
3 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2).

Moreover, as the United States Supreme Court has stated,
under Rule 8, a plaintiff must plead more than a mere allegation
that the defendants have harmed him.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (detailed factual allegations are not
required under Rule 8, but a complaint “demands more than an
unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

See Chiang v. Skeirik, 582

F.3d 238, 244 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted).
In the instant case, plaintiff asserts various complaints,
but these are raised collectively against more than a dozen
defendants.

Plaintiff fails to identify the specific alleged

wrongdoings by each defendant which form a legal cause of
action, such as the date(s) of the alleged wrongdoing and the
circumstances.
In short, by pleading his complaint in the manner he has-collectively asserting claims against the defendants–plaintiff
has failed to set forth the “who, what, when, where, or why”
type of information necessary to set forth any cognizable claims
4 

against any defendant upon which relief may be granted.

These

pleading deficiencies are fatal at this juncture, and the Court
cannot permit this action to proceed as pled.
Finally, while plaintiff alleges a “conspiracy” between
several state court judges, he fails to provide any factual
basis whatsoever to support a conspiracy theory of liability.
Plaintiff’s claims against the judicial defendants are barred
because of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Supreme Court

has long recognized a “general principle of the highest
importance to the proper administration of justice that a
judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him,
[should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without
apprehension of personal consequences to himself.” Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355 (citation omitted).

Here, the

plaintiff is challenging the members of the state judiciary
because of alleged action or inaction performed in their
judicial capacities.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims

against the state judges are barred by the doctrine of judicial
immunity.
3.

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
Plaintiff’s emergency motion states that plaintiff fears

for his safety.

He complains of his inability to obtain medical

5 

treatment and residency in Massachusetts.

He complains of the

violation of his civil rights during state criminal proceedings.
A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is an order issued
without notice to the party to be enjoined that may last no more
than 14 days.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).

A TRO may issue

without notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Id. 65(b)(1)(A).
Even where a plaintiff makes a showing of “immediate and
irreparable” injury, he must also show the reasons why notice to
the party to be enjoined should not be required.
65(b)(1)(B).

Id.

In ruling on a motion for either a preliminary

injunction or temporary restraining order, the Court must
consider: “(1) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether and to what extent the movant would suffer
irreparable harm if the request were rejected; (3) the balance
of hardships between the parties; and (4) any effects that the
injunction or its denial would have on the public interest.”
Diaz-Carrasquillo v. Garcia-Padilla, 750 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir.
2014).
Plaintiff’s emergency motion depends on the likelihood of
success on plaintiff's civil rights claim.

6 

Because plaintiff is

unable to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the
emergency motion will be denied.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

hereby GRANTED.
2.

Plaintiff’s emergency motion is denied without

prejudice.
3.

This action shall be dismissed within 35 days of the

date of this Memorandum and Order unless plaintiff demonstrates
good cause why this action should not be dismissed or files an
amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies of the
original complaint.
4.

Failure to comply with the directives of this Order

may result in dismissal of this action.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7