Cruz v. Springfield Police Department et al

Filing 9

District Judge Timothy S Hillman: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE.(Castles, Martin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MARCOS CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 12-30089-TSH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL
HILLMAN, D.J.
On May 10, 2012, plaintiff Marcos Cruz (“Cruz”), then a prisoner at NCCI Gardner in
Gardner, Massachusetts, filed a self-prepared civil action against the Springfield Police
Department and unidentified police officers. Cruz alleged that, while he was in the process of
being arrested by police officers, he was assaulted without justification or provocation, and
sustained personal injuries from a dog bite.
On May 17, 2012, a Procedural Order (Docket No. 4) entered denying Cruz’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis because Cruz failed to submit his certified prison account
statement with his motion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Cruz was directed to pay the
filing fee or file a renewed in forma pauperis motion along with his prison account statement.
On May 31, 2012, Cruz filed a renewed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 5) along with a prison account statement.
Thereafter, on June 12, 2012, this action was reassigned from Judge Saylor to the
undersigned. On June 26, 2012, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 7)
granting the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and screening the Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e) and 1915A. Upon screening, this Court found that: (1) Cruz’s
Complaint failed to comport with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; (2) the Springfield Police Department was not a suable entity; and (3) there was
no respondeat superior liability of the Springfield Police Department under § 1983. Cruz was
advised that this action would be dismissed within 42 days unless he filed an Amended
Complaint curing the legal deficiencies noted in the Memorandum and Order. He was also
directed to show good cause why his claims against the Springfield Police Department should
not be dismissed if such claims were included in an Amended Complaint.
On June 28, 2012, the mail sent to Cruz was returned as undeliverable. In light of that,
on July 3, 2012, this Court entered an Electronic Order indicating that Cruz’s whereabouts were
unknown to this Court; however, he remained under a continuing obligation to check on the
status of his case and to advise this Court of a change in mailing address. This Court also
indicated that Cruz still was obligated to comply with the directives contained in the prior
Memorandum and Order. On July 9, 2012, the copy of the Electronic Order sent to Cruz was
returned as undeliverable.
To date, Cruz has failed to comply with the directive to file an Amended Complaint
and/or to show cause why his claims against the Springfield Police Department should not be
dismissed.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 7), and
for the failure of Cruz to comply with the directives contained therein, it is hereby Ordered that

2

the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED.1

SO ORDERED.

8/21/12
DATE

/s/ Timothy Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this Court intends this opinion to constitute a
ruling on the merits.
3