Spaulding v. City of Framingham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

SARAH CATHERINE SPAULDING, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil No. 23-cv-12933--LTS

)

CITY OF FRAMINGHAM, et al., )

Defendants. )

)

ORDER

SOROKIN, J.

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is hereby

ALLOWED. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, her complaint is subject to

screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915 authorizes the federal courts to dismiss an

action in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee if, among other

things, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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). In conducting this review, the Court construes the plaintiff’s complaint “with some

liberality” because she is proceeding pro se. Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S.

Dept. of Educ., 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per

curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)).

2. Plaintiff shall by March 5, 2024, file an amended complaint that complies with

the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states a claim upon which

relief may be granted. Here, Spaulding uses the pre-printed form, Pro Se 1 (complaint for a

civil case) that is provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. ECF No. 1.

The complaint names as defendants: (1) the City of Framingham and its mayor, Charlie Sisitsky;

(2) the Town of Natick, the Natick Select Board and School Committee; (3) Katherine Craven,

Chair of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for the Commonwealth, and Patrick

Tutwiler, Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth and misidentified in the complaint as

“Stutwiler”. Id. at ¶ I (the parties to the complaint). Spaulding checked the box indicating

“federal question” jurisdiction and states the issue in the form of a question as follows: “Does a

school comittee (sic), suspected of federal fraud, have a right to exclude a student based on

residency in a non fraudulent claim to residency?” Id. at ¶ II(A) (if the basis for jurisdiction is a

federal question). The statement of jurisdiction includes 28 additional questions found on 3

pages that are attached to the complaint. Id. at 5 -7. The questions concern the responsibilities

of a school committee, the Commonwealth’s Board of Education for the Commonwealth and the

Secretary of Education. Id.

For the statement of claim, plaintiff states that she was “retaliated against/bullied by

adults/staff and excluded by Framingham and Natick school committees based on residency

investigations which [plaintiff] was denied due process.” Id. at ¶ III (statement of claim). The

statement of claim continues in 2 additional pages with 17 separate paragraphs. Id. at 9 -10. For

relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at ¶ IV (relief). The relief section continues on an

additional page which asserts statements for relief as well as factual statements. Id. at 1. The

prayer for relief includes matters that do not appear to be directly addressed by her claims. Id.

For example, plaintiff states that her neighbors “continue to have a fence on [her] property and

they claim to own [her] side of the fence where [her] service dog’s electric fence is installed and

needs to be repaired.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff states that she “cannot walk down [her] street out of

fear from the neighbors and others unknown conspirators.” Id. Plaintiff states that she “cannot

go to the hospital when [she feels] suicidal, depressed and hopeless because the hospital

diagnosed [plaintiff] with Paranoid Personality Disorder and told [plaintiff that] it is her mother

who is the problem.” Id. Plaintiff states that her “service dog now has cancer” and she wants

“enough money to go away from here and receive necessary mental health treatment and to

replace [her] service dog for as long as [she needs] a service dog.” Id. The final pages of the

complaint consist of a list of lawsuits filed by plaintiff and/or her mother on behalf of plaintiff in

both state and federal court. Id. at 12-13.

Here, the complaint is neither a short nor plain statement as contemplated and required by

the Rules. Rather, it is a confusing and unfocused pleading that attempts to weave together

largely speculative and conclusory allegations into a broad criminal conspiracy (or multiple

conspiracies) against the plaintiff. See Green v. Massachusetts, 108 F.R.D. 217, 218 (D. Mass.

1985) (“[C]omplaints which ramble, which needlessly speculate, accuse and condemn, and

which contain circuitous diatribes far removed from the heart of the claim do not comport with

these goals and this system; such complaints must be dismissed ....”). The claims are primarily

asserted collectively against the defendants and it is virtually impossible to cull out the causes of

action asserted against each of the defendants separately. Further, plaintiff makes bald assertions

that the defendants violated plaintiff’s rights, but apart from these assertions she does not clearly

link specific factual allegations of wrongdoing against each defendant. Rather, these assertions

are generalized and made as part of a general description of her claims. At this stage, it is simply

unfair to require the defendants to respond to the complaint in its current form. See Salahuddin

v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2nd Cir. 1988); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.

1996) (defendants cannot be expected to respond to pleadings that are prolix and confusing as to

what the claims are and against whom).

Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff wishes to proceed, she shall file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint – a new stand-alone document – must set forth plausible

claims upon which relief may be granted. In preparing the amended complaint, plaintiff shall

identify the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, and if it is a federal question, shall specifically the

specific federal statutes and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue.

Plaintiff should not set forth her claims in a narrative format. Rather, any amended complaint

should, in sequentially numbered paragraphs, focus on the legal claims separately against each

defendant, along with the basis for such claims. The amended complaint must include separate

counts each supported by factual allegations. The amended complaint should not assert multiple

causes of action against a defendant in one count. Rather, each count should identify separately

each cause of action and the grounds therefore. For example, just listing the counts at the end of

the complaint is insufficient pleading.

If an amended complaint is filed, it will be further screened.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED without

prejudice. Although pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel,” it is well settled that “[t]here is no absolute

constitutional right to a free lawyer in a civil case.” DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st

Cir. 1991). The First Circuit has held that a court’s denial of a motion to appoint counsel is

subject to reversal if: (1) a plaintiff is indigent; and, (2) exceptional circumstances exist such that

the denial of counsel will result in a fundamental unfairness impinging on his due process rights.

Id.; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). After considering the motion, at this stage of the proceedings the

motion is premature and, on this record, plaintiff has not yet demonstrated “exceptional

circumstances” that warrant appointment of counsel. Any renewal of such motion will not be

considered until both after plaintiff files an amended complaint that cures the pleading

deficiencies, and, if the Court determines that such deficiencies been cured, after defendants have

been served and respond to the amended complaint.

4. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.

Summonses shall not issue pending further order of the Court.

So Ordered.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin________

United States District Judge

Dated: February 12, 2024