Lakota v. Healy et al
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated, The court has reviewed the R&R, as well as the Amended Complaint and agrees with Judge Robertsons analysis regarding the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint. For these reasons, and upon de novo review, the court hereby ADOPTS Judge Robertsons R&R (Dkt. No. 11 ). It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STANLEY J. LAKOTA, JR.,
MAURA HEALY, Attorney General and,
JULIE DATRES, Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Action No. 17-30052-MGM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(Dkt. No. 11)
July 28, 2017
On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff, Stanley J. Lakota, Jr., filed his complaint and a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) In his complaint he alleged that one of the defendants, Julie Datres,
an Assistant Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, made a “false statement in a
successful attempt to change the judges [sic] decision” in an unidentified state court action. This
court referred his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis to Magistrate Judge Robertson, who
allowed Plaintiff’s motion but, noting that his complaint did not comply with the basic pleading
requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered him to file an amended
complaint that complied. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on June 5, 2017. (Dkt.
No. 7.) The Amended Complaint included additional allegations regarding numerous and severe
health problems Plaintiff suffered between June 2013 and June 2016, a recommendation from
Datres to an unidentified court that a receiver be appointed for Plaintiff’s home, and an assertion
that the receiver looted Plaintiff’s home, including disposing of Plaintiff’s clothing. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff
alleges Datres “willfully, intentionally, and aggressively lied, and made untrue false statements in a
successful attempt to change the judge’s decision” and that “the Defendant stipulated that the
Plaintiff was not to sell the property but to pay the taxes, insurance as well as, $87000.00 to the
receiver or loose [sic] his home.” (Id. at 1-2.) With respect to the other defendant, Maura Healy,
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plaintiff alleges she refused to “make
herself available” to Plaintiff on two occasions when he traveled to Boston and “did [not] do
anything to remedy the situation.” (Id. at 2.)
As Judge Robertson explained in her May 9, 2017 order, because Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis, his amended complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the amended complaint must be dismissed if it “fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Since this court had referred Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis to Judge Robertson, she screened the Amended Complaint for
compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 11.
(Dkt. No. 11.) Judge Robertson recommended the Amended Complaint be dismissed because it
both failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief from
defendants who are immune from such relief. Plaintiff had fourteen days to file any objections. The
court has received no objections.
The court has reviewed the R&R, as well as the Amended Complaint and agrees with Judge
Robertson’s analysis regarding the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint. For these reasons, and
upon de novo review, the court hereby ADOPTS Judge Robertson’s R&R (Dkt. No. 11).
It is So Ordered.
_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge
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?