Manes v. Cristello et al

Filing 8

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered adopting 5 Report and Recommendations. Upon de novo review, this recommendation is hereby adopted based on its obvious merits, and the absence of any objection. The complaint is hereby ordered dismissed. This case may now be closed. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Download PDF
Case 3: 17-cv-30105-MAP Document 5 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MANES PIERRE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-30105-KAR MICHELLE A. CRISTELLO, RENEE KHAN, HON. EDWARD DONNELLY JR., and HON. THERESA J. BISENIUS Defendants. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBERTSON, M.J. For the reasons stated below, the Court will allow the motion to proceed informa pauperis and recommend that the action be dismissed. Background Prose plaintiff Manes Pierre filed a self-prepared complaint against two state court judges, the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue and a Massachusetts Department of Revenue Counsel. Plaintiff claims that defendants deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights, apparently in two proceedings in the Massachusetts state courts relating to his child support obligations and divorce. Plaintiff alleges that the Courts and agencies of the Commonwealth are motivated "by the need to increase the court revenue by denying plaintiff access to justice" and that plaintiff was "deprived of his constitutional rights for the monetary benefit of the defendants." Citing to a 2013 Boston Globe article about judicial pay raises generally, plaintiff alleges that the Commonwealth's District and Probate Court judges are somehow corrupt and interested in profiting off of persons such as plaintiff. In particular, plaintiff references two state civil actions in which he was or is a party, styled Department of Revenue et al. v. Pierre, Ml 16-Wl091-WD (the "Paternity Action") and Pierre v.

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?