Chandler v. Greater Bos. Legal Servs.
| Decision Date | 10 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-12979-GAO |
| Parties | SAM CHANDLER, Plaintiff, v. GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
O'TOOLE, D.J.
On November 4, 2013, Plaintiff Sam Chandler ("Chandler"), a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, filed a package of exhibits along with a Civil Action Cover Sheet and a Local Category Sheet. The Civil Action Cover Sheet indicates his suit is based on civil rights violations. He lists the Defendants as ATF, DUA, and Greater Boston Legal Services ("GBLS"). While unclear, he also appears to name the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, and the FBI as Defendants.1 Chandler's legal claims are not set forth in a separate Complaint. From what can be discerned from the various exhibits, however, his claims appear to be twofold. He challenges: (1) the seizure of guns and ammunition by ATF; and (2) money taken from the DUA in connection with his Unemployment Insurance ("UI") benefits. He seeks monetary damages as relief.
With respect to Chandler's claims against the DUA, one of the exhibits indicates that his UI benefits have been reduced by the DUA because of overpayment. He attaches a copy of an October 15, 2013 e-mail correspondence from his legal counsel at GBLS indicating, inter alia,that Chandler had a legitimate complaint about DUA's slowness in addressing his case arising out of online overpayment by the DUA of UI in the amount of $1,900.00.2 From this e-mail, it appears that the DUA had reduced Chandler's UI insurance by 50% because of overpayment by DUA, leaving him only a small weekly benefit. Further, the e-mail indicated that Chandler had insisted that the DUA owed him $4,000 in retroactive UI benefits because, although the DUA claimed Chandler was paid by debit card in 2012, he never received the money.
Another exhibit included a summary of transactions with the DUA with respect to payments to Chandler. Further, the exhibit indicates that GBLS reviewed all of the data with the DUA and had determined that no further UI benefits were due and owing to Chandler. All overpayments had been waived by DUA and the correct amount was established.
Next, with respect to the claims against ATF, another exhibit indicates that Chandler had complained that his social security card was compromised by the DUA as a result of a computer security breach. He contended that fraudulent activities had taken place using his social security number and this has had a negative impact in connection with his efforts to obtain employment. Further, he claims this has caused passport issues that prevent him from obtaining employment in Canada. Finally, he claims the fraudulent activities have hindered his efforts to work with ATF to obtain his firearm license. This is the only reference to ATF apart from the allegations in the Civil Cover Sheet that his guns and ammunition were seized by ATF.3
Along with the package of materials, Chandler filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 3).
Upon review of Chandler's financial disclosures in his in forma pauperis motion, this Court finds that he cannot afford to pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees. Accordingly, his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) will be ALLOWED.
For purposes of this Memorandum and Order, this Court will consider Chandler's various exhibits to constitute his Complaint.4 Because Chandler is proceeding in forma pauperis his Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Further, in addition to the statutory screening requirements under § 1915, this Court has an independent obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its subject matter jurisdiction.5 Inconnection with this preliminary screening, Chandler's pro se filings are construed generously. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 209 F.3d 18. 23 (1st Cir. 2000). Even under a broad reading, however, this action is subject to dismissal for the reasons set forth below.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Phelps v. Local 0222, No. 09-11218, 2010 WL 3342031, at *5 (D. Mass. 2010) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (quotations and citations omitted)). In addition, the pleadings "must afford the defendants a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense." Benyamin v. Commonwealth Med. UMass Med. Ctr., Inc., 2011 WL 2681195, at *2, (D. Mass. 2011) (). At a minimum, "the complaint should at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why." Id. (quotation omitted). While the "First Circuit holds a pro se litigant to a standard of pleading less stringent than that for lawyers," "this cannot be taken to mean that pro se complaints are held to no standard at all." Green v. Massachusetts, 108 F.R.D. 217, 218 (D. Mass. 1985). Thus, "the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) are minimal - but minimal requirements are not tantamount to nonexistent requirements." Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61,68 (1st Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted).
Further, under Rule 8, a plaintiff must plead more than a mere allegation that the defendant(s) has harmed him [or her]. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (detailed factual allegations are not required under Rule 8, but a complaint "demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation" (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). See Chiang v. Skeirik, 582 F.3d 238, 244 (1st Cir. 2009) () (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Here, as noted above, Chandler has not filed a separate document (Complaint) setting forth his legal causes of action against each of the Defendants. Rather, he simply has submitted exhibits along with his assertion in the Civil Action Cover Sheet that his guns and ammunition had been seized, and monies had been taken from him by the DUA. He has not provided the necessary underlying facts to set forth any plausible claim for relief in the form of money damages from the Defendants.
While this Court may infer that Chandler is dissatisfied with the services provided by the GBLS with respect to his problem with his UI benefits, he sets forth no legal claims against GBLS. Moreover, apart from indicating in an exhibit that he has been trying to work with ATF to obtain his firearms license, he provides no facts whatsoever to indicate why ATF is named as a Defendant. The same is true with respect to the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office and the FBI. There are no allegations in any of the materials that would provide a basis for liability of either of these Defendants, and this Court cannot discern any.
"District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to themor to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments." Terrance v. Cuyahoga County, 2005 WL 2491531 at *1 (N.D. Ohio 2005) citing Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). See McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1979) (). Such an exercise would "'require ... [the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would ... transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Terrance, 2005 WL 2491531, at *1, quoting Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. See also Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989) ( ). "[T]he failure to identify a particular legal theory ... places an unfair burden on the defendant to speculate on the potential claims that plaintiff may be raising against it and the defenses it might assert in response to each of these possible causes of action." Terrance, 2005 WL 2491531, at *1.
As pled, it would be unfair to the Defendants to have to peruse Chandler's current submissions in order to determine what legal claims have been asserted against them and/or to determine the factual bases underlying each claim. Such efforts are not contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; rather, the onus is on Chandler to submit a Complaint that identifies and sets forth, in an organized fashion, the legal causes of action he seeks to assert against each Defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial