Creach v. Dookhan et al
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER DISMISSING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK entered. the court dismisses the claims against the County of Suffolk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff is reminded that he has until September 24, 2021, to oppose the pending motion to dismiss. (PSSA, 4)
Case 1:20-cv-10714-RGS Document 81 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-10714-RGS
YASIR S. CREACH
ANNIE DOOKHAN, Lab Chemist; JULIE NASIFF, Lab Chemist
Supervisor; LINDA HAN, Lab Director; CHUCK SALEMI; CITY OF
BOSTON; COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ORDER DISMISSING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
September 9, 2021
Plaintiff Yasir Creach brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging various constitutional violations related to alleged misconduct at the
Hinton Lab. Defendants Han, Nasiff and Salemi have answered the second
amended complaint. Docket Nos. 71, 77, 79. The City of Boston moved to
dismiss, Docket No. 66, and Creach was granted an extension until
September 24, 2021, to oppose the pending motion to dismiss. Docket No.
Now before the court is Creach’s request for assistance in serving
Suffolk County. Docket No. 74.
Because the Massachusetts legislature
abolished the government of six counties in 1999, including Suffolk County,
the court will dismiss the County of Suffolk as a defendant in this action. See
Case 1:20-cv-10714-RGS Document 81 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 34B, § 1 (1999). All of Suffolk County's “functions,
duties and responsibilities ... including, but not limited to, the operation and
management of the county jail and house of correction ... [were] transferred
... to the [C]ommonwealth.” Id. at § 4. To the extent such claims are asserted
against the Commonwealth, for the reasons stated in the Court’s electronic
order granting the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss, Docket No. 33,
Suffolk County and it’s agencies would be protected by the state’s immunity
from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, barring an unequivocal waiver of
that immunity. Here, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity and the
County of Suffolk will be dismissed as a defendant.1
In light of the foregoing, the court dismisses the claims against the
County of Suffolk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). Plaintiff is reminded that he has until September 24, 2021, to
oppose the pending motion to dismiss.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Creach’s second amended complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (“Section 1915”) because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, and pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (“Section 1915A”) because he is a prisoner. Both Section 1915 and Section
1915A authorize federal courts to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the claims therein are
frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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?