In Re: Motion Requesting Permission to File New Lawsuit

Filing 5

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying 1 Motion requesting permission to file a new lawsuit; denying 2 Motion to show good cause for filing a complaint. The clerk is directed to terminate this matter without assessment of the filing fee. A copy of this Order was sent by first class mail to Gerard D. Grandoit, P.O. Box 400547, Cambridge, MA 02140. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
M.B.D. NO. 17-91151-RGS
IN Re: MOTION REQUESTING PERMISSION TO FILE NEW LAWSUIT
MOVANT: GERARD D. GRANDOIT
ORDER
September 20, 2017
Movant Gerard D. Grandoit has been deemed an abusive litigant. See
Grandoit v. Staples, C.A. No. No. 10-10299-RGS (Dec. 6, 2012). As a result,
he has been enjoined from filing civil actions in this Court without first
obtaining permission from a judicial officer.
Now before the Court are Grandoit’s motions (1) requesting permission
to file a new lawsuit and (2) to show good cause for filing a complaint. See
Docket Nos. 1 - 2. Grandoit did not pay the $47 Miscellaneous Business
Docket filing fee or seek waiver thereof. His motions are accompanied by
two proposed complaints seeking equitable and monetary relief from
defendants Roche Insurance Agency (“Roche”) and Arbella Mutual
Insurance Company (“Arbella”) for statutory and constitutional violations.
Here, Grandoit is proceeding pro se and as such, his pleadings are entitled

to a liberal construction. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–521
(1972).
In his motion requesting permission to file a new lawsuit, Grandoit
informs the Court of the difficulty he has had in retrieving files from his
computer. See Docket No. 1. He asks the Court to delay “the process” to
provide him with additional “time to file the rest of the complaint.” Id. He
seeks “leave and permission to allow [him to file] the recognized claims from
[his] complaint against the Defendants involved.” Id.

In addition to the

complaints, Grandoit has filed addendums, attachments and memoranda in
support.
Grandoit's complaints consist primarily of a recounting of events
surrounding his July 2013 purchase of an Arbella car insurance policy from
Roche as well as his subsequent efforts to have his policy reinstated in 2014
after it was cancelled due to nonpayment and in 2016 after Arbella
terminated its agency contract with Roche. Grandoit subsequently filed
demand letters to the defendants as well as administrative and consumer
complaints with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance, Massachusetts
Office of the Attorney General, the U.S. Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

2

Grandoit’s request to file a new civil action will be denied. Each
complaint contains from thirty to sixty counts and many of the numbered
counts consist of formulaic recitations of some of the elements of particular
statutes and regulations. The allegations concerning the alleged termination
and/or reinstatement of Grandoit’s insurance policies epitomize the type of
“threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements” found to be insufficient by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Moreover, because the

citizenship of Grandoit and each of the defendants are not diverse, diversity
jurisdiction under Section 1332 does not exist. Northeast Federal Credit
Union v. Neves, 837 F.2d 531, 533 (1st Cir. 1988) (vacating and directing
district court to dismiss, no diversity jurisdiction existed); Paparella v.
Idreco Invest., 858 F. Supp. 283, 284 (D. Mass. 1994) (dismissing). Even if
there was diversity of citizenship between the parties, Grandoit cannot
satisfy the amount in controversy requirement because it appears that he
lacks a reasonable, good faith basis to believe that his recovery could exceed
$75,000.
To the extent Grandoit alleges federal constitutional violations,
private conduct is generally beyond the reach of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
creates a private right of action through which plaintiffs may recover against
3

state actors for constitutional violations. González-Maldonado v. MMM
Healthcare, Inc., 693 F.3d 244, 247-48 (1st Cir. 2012). Moreover, Grandoit
offers no factual allegations to support his bare conclusions that the
defendants’ actions were discriminatory.
To the extent Grandoit seeks to assert a myriad of claims under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, (1) defendants are not lenders
that provided credit to Grandoit, and (2) the allegations are insufficient to
support a finding of discrimination under the burden shifting framework set
forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).
Based on the foregoing, I do not find any good basis to permit Grandoit
to file the proposed complaints and it is hereby Ordered that:
(1)

Grandoit’s motion (Docket No. 1) requesting permission to file a

new lawsuit is DENIED;
(2)

Grandoit’s motion (Docket No. 2) to show good cause for filing a

complaint is DENIED; and
(3)

The clerk is directed to terminate this matter without assessment

of the filing fee.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4