Swanson v. South Boston Municipal Court et al

Filing 13

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing action without prejudice for reasons of Younger abstention. All other motions 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the South Boston Municipal Court. [Copy of Order mailed to plaintiff at to South Boston Municipal Court on 11/29/2017.] (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CARL SWANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 17-12308-PBS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
November 29, 2017
Saris, C.J.
Plaintiff Carl Swanson has filed a complaint in which he
asks this Court to review and adjudicate a matter that is
presently pending in the South Boston Municipal Court.

For the

reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action.
I.

Background
On November 22, 2017, Swanson filed in this Court a

complaint against the South Boston Municipal Court (“SBMC”), a
bailiff at the SBMC, the Honorable Michael C. Bolden, and the
Supreme Judicial Court.

Swanson brings this action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Constitutional right
to due process.

He also alleges that, under state law, the

defendants have violated his right to due process.

Accordingly to Swanson, 1 on November 17, 2017, Swanson’s
father went to the SBMC and requested an abuse prevention order
against Swanson.

This order requires, inter alia, that Swanson

vacate the residence he shared with his father and mother.

On

November 21, 2017, Swanson filed motions for court assistance in
locating municipal employees who had conducted a mental health
examination on him just hours before his father sought the abuse
prevention order.
day.

Judge Bolden denied these motions the same

Immediately thereafter, Swanson filed another set of

motions.

Ten minutes after Swanson gave these papers to the

bailiff, he was informed that Judge Bolden would consider all
the papers at a hearing scheduled for December 1, 2017.
In the present action, Swanson argues that Judge Bolden’s
initial denial of his motions was “critical fundamental error,”
and the court’s failure to immediately rule on the second set of
motions Swanson filed violated his due process rights under
state and federal law.

See Compl. ¶¶ 4, 9.

Swanson further

asserts that his due process rights are violated because
“Massachusetts law does not allow single justices to review
abuse protection orders.”

Id. ¶ 13.

In his prayer for relief, Swanson states that, at this
time, he is only asking this Court to order that he immediately
1

For purposes of this Memorandum and Order, the Court, as it
must, treats all of Swanson’s well-pled factual allegations as
true.
2

be allowed to return to his home.

Although he opposes the

protection order, Swanson represents that he is “willing to
allow that aspect of it to be continued until further proceeding
can be held.”
II.

Id. ¶ 14a.

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Upon review of Swanson’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court concludes that he is without income or
assets to prepay the $400 filing fee.

Accordingly, the motion

is GRANTED.
B.

Review of the Complaint

Because Swanson 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 in forma
pauperis actions that are malicious, frivolous, fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

See 28

Further, a court has an obligation to

inquire sua sponte into its own subject matter jurisdiction.
See McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004).
Upon review of the complaint, the Court abstains from
exercising jurisdiction over this action.

“Abstention is a

devise designed to facilitate the side-by-side operation of
federal and state courts, balancing their respective interests
3

in the spirit of comity.”

Coggeshall v. Massachusetts Bd. of

Registration of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658, 664 (1st Cir.
2010).

“Except in the most extraordinary cases, a federal court

must presume that state courts, consistent with the imperatives
of the Supremacy Clause, see U.S. Const. art. VI, are fully
competent to adjudicate federal constitutional and statutory
claims properly presented by the parties.”

Casa Marie, Inc. v.

Super. Ct., 988 F.2d 252, 262 (1st Cir.1993) (footnote omitted).
Under Younger abstention, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971), “a federal court must abstain from hearing a case if
doing so would ‘needlessly inject’ the federal court into
ongoing state proceedings.”

Coggeshall, 604 F.3d at 664

(quoting Brooks v. N.H. Supreme Ct., 80 F.3d 633, 637 (1st Cir.
1996)).

Younger abstention is even appropriate where litigants

“claim violations of important federal rights,” In re Justices
of Superior Ct. Dept. of Mass. Trial Ct., 218 F.3d 11, 17 (1st
Cir. 2000), as long as the federal claims can be “raised and
resolved somewhere in the state process” Maymó-Meléndez v.
Álvarez-Ramírez, 364 F.3d 27, 36 (1st Cir. 2004) (emphasis
added).
Here, the Court would “needlessly inject” itself in a
pending state proceeding if it were to alter the terms of the
abuse protection order, require the state court to issue for
orders or subpoenas to locate witnesses, and provide other
4

relief with regards to the alleged due process violations that
have occurred in the state court proceeding against Swanson.
The Court has no reason to believe that the Swanson will not
have an opportunity to raise all pertinent issues within the
state court system, whether in front of the trial court or on
appeal.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, this Court orders:
(1)

the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED;
(2)

this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for reasons

of Younger abstention;
(3)

all other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and

(4)

the Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the South

Boston Municipal Court.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris _______
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

5