Elias v. Elias
| Decision Date | 15 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 13-11602-JLT |
| Parties | CYNTHIA MONTEIRO ELIAS, Plaintiff, v. MARIO ELIAS, ET Al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
On July 3, 2013, plaintiff Cynthia Montiero Elias ("Cynthia"), a resident of Milton, Massachusetts, filed a self-prepared document entitled "Motion to Restrict Son J. Elias From Leaving U.S. x 2 weeks effective today 7/4/13" (Docket No. 1) (first name of child omitted by the Court and hereinafter referred to as "J"). The pleading is not entirely coherent or organized. From what can be discerned, Cynthia contends that her (estranged) husband Mario Elias ("Mario") is not a United States citizen, but he has custody of their son, J, a United States citizen. She alleges "economic crimes" had led to her loss of custody of J, but does not specify the nature of those crimes. Id. at 1. She claims that the Probate and Family Court issued an order that Mario must seek permission before leaving the country; however, Mario plans to leave for Cape Verde on July 5, 2013. She claims that if Mario left, that would constitute a violation of the Court Order "after the fact." Id.
Cynthia seeks an injunction or an emergency restraining order to allow time for the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI to investigate complex economic crimes that she claims has caused injury to her and to J in a protracted custody battle. Attached to the motion was a copy of a "Request for Inquiry" (Docket No. 1 at 6) in which it appears that on July 3,2013, Cynthia alleged obstruction of justice in the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court. She also alleged wire and mail fraud by the Milton Police, the Department of Child and Families in Weymouth, the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court, and the Norfolk District Attorney ("DA"). Further, she claims that Mario committed perjury under oath. As an additional matter, Cynthia claims that she has been to the DA, the Milton Police, the Court, back to the DA and the State Police, to no avail. She asserts criminal activity because the "missing and exploitive children's bureau filed a report related to this family under heading of internet pornography." Id. at 7.
Next, Cynthia alleges that false restraining orders were taken out of the Milton Police Station, that she was entrapped by false allegations in order to "criminalize mother" so that she would be unlawfully incarcerated. She contends these actions constituted hate crimes based on race, gender, perception of mental illness, and religious discrimination. Id. She further alleges that the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court had pre-arranged and "rigged" the custody battle, along with various attorneys and others, who, in conjunction with judges, manipulated her case. Id. She also believes that Mario had "made deals" in order to have his sexual assault charges dismissed. Id.
Also attached to the motion was a copy of a pleading entitled "Findings and Rulings" from the Norfolk County District Court Department, Quincy Division. That document indicates that in February, 2013, Mario appeared in that Court to appeal the denial of his request for criminal complaints to issue against Cynthia. Mario's appeal was denied after hearing, on the ground that there was no right to appeal the clerk magistrate's denial of his application for a criminal complaint. Additionally, based on the merits, the Quincy District Court declined to issue any criminal complaints against Cynthia. The Court noted that Mario had brought hisconcerns to the Milton Police, but officers declined to apply for a criminal complaint against Cynthia. Moreover, the concerns were also brought to the attention of the Norfolk County Probate Court where Mario and Cynthia had been litigating a very contentious divorce and child custody battle. Further, the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court, in response to Mario's concerns, modified Cynthia's rights to visitation several times, including a time in November, 2012, when it required Cynthia to be placed on GPS monitoring if she wished to resume visitation with J. Finally, the Quincy District Court found the matter was best left to the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court.
In the civil cover sheet attached to her motion, Cynthia listed as defendants Mario, Norfolk County, and the Town of Milton. She stated her causes of action to be economic crimes, hate crimes, racial, gender and religious discrimination, and retaliation. Along with her motion, Cynthia filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2).
Thereafter, on July 8, 2013, Cynthia filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket No. 6) seeking to add defendants Department of Child and Families, Value Options, Bournewood Hospital, Milton Hospital, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associations, Association Family Conciliation of Court, and Justice Harms. Cynthia seeks to add these defendants claiming this to be a complex case involving fraud, deception, and "persuasion of plaintiff's son's well-being through ritual abuse trauma." Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 6 at 1).
Additionally, Cynthia filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Docket No. 5) seeking to move forward with her case for malfeasance, fraud, deception, civil rights violations by police officers, hate crimes, religious discrimination, and discrimination based on the perception of mental illness. Id. She again alleges that the defendants pre-arranged in advance that Mario would win custody of J, so that he could "get out" of his sexual assault charges and to harass herin retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights in advocating for her son's educational well-being. She seeks permission to present information and also to expand the number of defendants.1
Upon review of Cynthia's financial disclosures indicating that she has no substantial assets or income, this Court finds that she lacks funds to pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees for this action.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) will be ALLOWED.
As an initial matter, Cynthia started this case by filing a motion seeking emergency injunctive relief in the form of an Order restraining Mario from leaving the country with J. She has not filed a "Complaint" in accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (). Nevertheless, for purposes of this Memorandum and Order, this Court will construe Cynthia's emergency motion also as her original Complaint. In light of this, Cynthia's Motion to Amend Complaint is permitted once as of right pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) since no responsive pleading had been filed.
Accordingly, Cynthia's Motion to Amend (Docket No. 6) will be ALLOWED as of right. To clarify, this Court will consider both the motion (Docket No. 1) and the Motion to Amend(Docket No. 6) together as constituting the Amended Complaint, which shall be the operative pleading at this time, for purposes of preliminary screening.
Because Cynthia is proceeding in forma pauperis, her Amended Complaint (Docket Nos. 1 and 6) 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, the Court has an independent obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its subject matter jurisdiction.2 In connection with this preliminary screening, Cynthia's pro se pleadings 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 Educ., 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.
Cynthia's Amended Complaint (Docket Nos. 1 and 6) fails to set forth any plausibleclaims upon which relief may be granted in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to include in the complaint, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This statement must "'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2005). It must afford the defendant(s) a "[']meaningful opportunity to mount a defense,'" Díaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 377 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Rodríguez v. Doral Mort. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)). See also Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev., 421 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2005). "In a civil rights action as in any other action . . . . , the complaint should at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why." Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004).
Here, Cynthia's sparse Amended Complaint, written in narrative form, does not set forth the material underlying facts or outline the causes of action upon which liability is based. She alleges, in a general fashion, that an injustice is occurring with respect to her son, but states no actionable legal theory...
To continue reading
Request your trial