The opinion
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
KAREN BROWN HOLMES, )
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. ) NO. 19-10665-WGY
)
CARPENTER TRAINING CENTER and )
LOCAL 2168, )
Defendants. )
)
YOUNG, D.J. April 25, 2019
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies without prejudice
plaintiff’s motions for counsel and for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and directs plaintiff to (1) either pay the filing fee or
file a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2)
file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified below.
I. Relevant Background
On April 5, 2019, Karen Brown Holmes (“Holmes”), a resident of
Boston, Massachusetts, filed a pro se complaint accompanied by
motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The complaint is submitted on a pre-printed form and states the
basis for this court’s jurisdiction as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question). See Complaint (“Compl.”), Docket No. 1. Named as
defendants are the Carpenters Training Center and Local 2168. Id.
The complaint contains no factual allegations nor request for relief.
is an employment civil rights action. See Docket No. 1-1.
II. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Holmes’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis indicates
that she is employed as a trainee at the Pine Street Inn and that she
receives disability or workers compensation payments. However, she
fails to state the amount of her wages and the amount she receives in
disability or workers compensation payments. Because the financial
information in the motion is incomplete, the court is unable to
determine whether the plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis
status and will deny the motion without prejudice.
III. Screening of the Complaint
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Consequently, a
plaintiff who seeks to bring her suit in a federal forum bears the
burden of establishing that the federal court has subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d 32, 35
(1st Cir. 2017). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity”
jurisdiction, respectively.
When examining the sufficiency of the pleadings, the court
considers whether the plaintiff has pled “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation omitted).
In conducting this review, the court liberally construes Holmes’
complaint because Holmes is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
IV. Discussion
Here, there does not appear to be any basis for diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the plaintiff and the
defendants appear to be citizens of Massachusetts.
As to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the
complaint does not identify a cause of action under federal law.
Holmes indicates on the civil cover sheet that this is a civil rights
action related to her employment. However, it is impossible to
discern from the complaint precisely who Holmes alleges is liable for
what alleged misconduct.
If Holmes wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended
complaint that clearly identifies what each defendant did wrong and
the legal claim against each party. Holmes must also identify a basis
for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. As an amended complaint
completely supercedes the original complaint, see Connectu LLC v.
Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 91 (1st Cir. 2008), Holmes should include in
the amended complaint anything from the original complaint that she
wishes to be part of the amended complaint.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is denied without
prejudice.
3. If Holmes wishes to proceed with this action, within 21
days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, she must (1)
either pay the $400 filing fee or file a renewed motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) file an amended
complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies noted above.
4. Failure to comply with these directives will subject this
case to dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE