Higgins v. Commonwealth of Masachusetts
Filing
7
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. For the reasons set forth above, and in accordance with this Court's order dated May 14, 2018, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii).(PSSA, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
JOHN T. HIGGINS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMONWEALTH OF
)
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT
)
OF TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
18-10601-FDS
ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
On May 14, 2018, the Court issued a memorandum and order permitting plaintiff John T.
Higgins to proceed in forma pauperis and directing him to show cause why this action against
the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance should not be dismissed.
The memorandum and order explained that Higgins cannot relitigate the state claim
against the Department of Transitional Assistance and that this Court is without subject matter
jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of rulings and judgments entered by the Middlesex Superior
Court. Finally, Higgins was advised that he cannot bring a claim for damages against a state
agency pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Higgins has filed a one-page, handwritten response. He states that his case should be
heard by “a standing court” and contends that dismissal would be “a blatant infringement of [his]
constitutional rights by not allowing due process, as previously stated.”
After review of Higgins’ response, the Court finds that he has failed to show good cause
why this action should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and in accordance with this Court's
memorandum and order dated May 14, 2018, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii).
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: June 8, 2018
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?