Farr v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue
Filing
10
District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with the Courts Order dated December 20, 2024, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (SF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STEVEN J. FARR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE (Child Support Division),
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-40153-MRG
ORDER
January 29, 2025
GUZMAN, D.J.
Steven J. Farr initiated this action by filing a pro se complaint against the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue, Child Support Division (“DOR”), seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief barring the defendant from collecting child support payments. (ECF 1). With
his complaint, Farr filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (ECF 3) and an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF 4).
By Order dated December 20, 2024, Farr was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF 5). Farr’s emergency motion was denied and he was advised that the complaint is subject
to dismissal because the complaint fails to allege any facts that could support a claim against the
defendant. (ECF 5). Id. The Order stated that if he wished to proceed with this action, he must
file an amended complaint that states a basis for this Court's jurisdiction and also states a
plausible claim for relief. Id. The Order further stated that failure to comply with this directive
by January 20, 2025, will result in dismissal of this action. Id. On December 20, 2024, Farr
filed a motion to expedite (ECF 7), however, it was not entered on the docket until December 23,
2024.
Twelve days before the expiration of the deadline, on January 8, 2025, Farr filed an
“amended motion” which was entered on the docket as plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF 8).
Nine days after the expiration of the deadline, on January 29, 2025, Farr filed an “emergency
motion for temporary protective order (TPO) and injunctive relief” seeking to enjoin the DOR as
well as the Webster Police Department and DiRenzo Towing & Recovery. (ECF 9).
The factual allegations in the amended complaint (ECF 8) are in all relevant ways
identical to the allegations in the original complaint. Although Farr has dropped his claim under
Americans with Disabilities Act, he again asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and references
the Veterans’ Benefits Act, 28 U.S.C. § 5301.
To the extent Farr reasserts Section 1983 claims already raised in his original complaint
and rejected, he again fails to state a claim because, among other things, such claims are asserted
against a state agency which, among other things, is immune from suit. Similarly, Farr cannot
support a Section 1983 action under the premise that DOR violated 38 U.S.C. § 5301. Rose v.
Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) (rejecting that Section 5301 applies to child support).
Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with the Court’s Order dated December 20,
2024, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The clerk shall
terminate the pending motions and enter a final order of dismissal.
So Ordered.
/s/ Margaret R. Guzman
MARGARET R. GUZMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 29, 2025
2
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?