Blass v. Archdiocese of Boston

Filing 6

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. the Court DISMISSES this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FRANTZ PIERRE BLASS, JR.,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 23-12374-LTS

ORDER
November 14, 2023
SOROKIN, J.
Frantz Pierre Blass, Jr., proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a complaint
accompanied by an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees or
Costs (“Application”). Doc. Nos. 1, 2. By Memorandum and Order dated October 17, 2023, the
Court allowed plaintiff’s Application and found that the allegations against the Archdiocese of
Boston were insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. No. 4. The Court ordered
plaintiff to file, if he wishes to proceed with this action, an amended complaint that provides a
basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and sets forth a plausible claim upon which
relief may be granted. Id. The Court also noted that failure to comply on or before November 7,
2023, will result in the dismissal of this action. Id.
On October 23, 2023, plaintiff filed a letter. Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff states that he is writing
“to amend [his] plea against the Archdiocese of Massachusetts” and contends that because his
“case raises federal questions” he “believe[s] federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction in cases

involving the constitution.” Id. at 1. As for diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff states “that the
amount in question is greater than $75,000.” Id.
Even with the more liberal construction accorded a pro se litigant’s pleading, plaintiff
still fails to provide a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and fails to state any factual matter that,
if accepted as true, would allow plaintiff to prevail on any identifiable cause of action. Given
the fact that the defendant archdiocese is not a person and there are no facts alleged that the
defendant falls under the “color of state law” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court
is without federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although plaintiff
contends the amount in controversy is over $75,000, because both plaintiff and defendant are
both located in Massachusetts, this Court is without diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332.
For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2