Loring v. US Goverment Agencies et al

Filing 12

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 6 Motion to Amend; granting 7 Motion to Amend. This action shall be dismissed unless plaintiff files, on or before August 30, 2017, a second amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies of the original and amended complaints. Failure to comply with the directives of this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal of this action. (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 27, 2017
SARIS, C.D.J.
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants plaintiff’s
motions to amend and/or supplement.

This action shall be

dismissed unless plaintiff files, on or before August 30, 2017,
a second amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies
of the original and amended complaints.
BACKGROUND
This action was initiated by pro se plaintiff Vaughn Loring
on July 25, 2017.

The Court granted plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and denied without prejudice his
motion for emergency hearing and protective order.
No. 11.

See Docket

The Court advised plaintiff that his complaint will be

dismissed unless he demonstrates good cause why it should not be
dismissed or files an amended complaint curing the pleading
deficiencies of the original complaint.

Id.

Plaintiff also filed documents seeking to amend and
supplement the original complaint.

See Docket Nos. 6-7.

The

original complaint names more than a dozen defendants1 and
plaintiff seeks to add additional parties from the Bristol
County House of Correction, the North Attleboro Police
Department, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Sturdy Memorial
Hospital, the Supreme Court, the Taunton Probate Court, the
Department of Revenue and the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
DISCUSSION
Decisions regarding motions to amend and supplement
pleadings are both governed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) provides

that a plaintiff may amend his complaint once as of right.

On

motion and reasonable notice, the court may, pursuant to Rule
15(d), permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting
out facts that occur after the filing of the complaint.

At this

early stage of litigation, plaintiff may amend as of right.
Because an amended complaint supercedes the original
complaint, Brait Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, Div. of
Capital Asset Mgt., 644 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 2011), the amended
complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Even under a broad reading of the amended complaint in
conjunction with the original complaint, this action remains

1

The complaint names as defendants five state court judges, the Attleboro
District Court, the Clerk’s office, the Probation Office, the Chief of Court,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, North Attleboro Police Detective Dan
Ariggi, MassHealth, and US Government Agency’s organizations.

2 

subject to dismissal.

Here, the amended complaint and

supplement simply list the additional defendants to be added to
the original complaint.

Plaintiff names defendants that include

private parties, public governments, agencies officials and
employees.

As to the doctors, plaintiff states that the

“doctors [are] to be named at a later date.”

See Docket No. 6.

With the original complaint, plaintiff filed twenty-two
pages of exhibits consisting primarily documents from Loring’s
criminal prosecution in the North Attleboro District Court.
Docket No. 1-1.

See

The exhibits include 2015 medical reports from

both Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Sturdy Memorial Hospital
concerning Loring’s knee.

Loring also submitted as exhibits the

2016 letter stating that Loring qualified for MassHealth
CarePlus as well as the 2015 letter stating that Loring didn’t
qualify for MassHealth based on his failure to provide timely
verification of his residency pursuant to 130 C.M.R. §
502.003(D) (verification of eligibility factors).
As in the original complaint, plaintiff again fails plead
the factual allegations and claims in the manner required by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To prevail on a civil rights

claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must establish
that (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution
or the laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was
caused by a person acting under color of state law. See West v.
3 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

To the extent plaintiff brings

suit against the United States, the Supreme Court has limited
Bivens2 to claims of constitutional violations by federal
officers.
Moreover, a person convicted of a crime may not raise
claims under § 1983 if a judgment on the merits of those claims
would affect the validity of his conviction or sentence, unless
the conviction or sentence has been set aside. See Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486 (1994).
To the extent plaintiff brings suit against two hospitals,
private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is generally beyond the
reach of Section 1983. González–Maldonado v. MMM Healthcare,
Inc., 693 F.3d 244, 247–48 (1st Cir. 2012); American Mfrs. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49–50 (1999).

Thus, the

hospitals would not ordinarily fall under the “color of state
law" within the meaning of Section 1983.
Further, 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.

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, the Supreme Court created a federal cause of action
for money damages against federal agents for alleged
constitutional violations. 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971).  
2

4 

Even so, plaintiff’s claims against the judicial defendants are
barred because of the doctrine of judicial immunity.
If the plaintiff would like to pursue this action, he will
be granted an opportunity to file a second amended complaint
that cures the above-discussed pleading deficiencies.

Any

second amended complaint must be complete in all respects and
set forth factual allegations and legal claims in a manner that
can be reviewed by the Court and answered by the defendants.

It

must also recite factual allegations sufficient to raise his
claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation;
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); set
forth averments that are “concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(e)(1); and state such averments in separately-numbered
paragraphs describing the date and time of the events alleged
and identifying wherever possible the specific participants in
the acts about which he complains.

In regard to a civil rights

claim, plaintiff must aver facts indicating the personal
involvement of each defendant in the alleged wrongdoing, and a
basis for finding that each defendant acted under color of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s motions
to amend and/or supplement are granted.

This action shall be

dismissed unless plaintiff files, on or before August 30, 2017,
a second amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies
5 

of the original and amended complaints.

Failure to comply with

the directives of this Memorandum and Order will result in
dismissal of this action.

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

6