# Latham v. Hurley

> District Court, D. Massachusetts · April 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10201957

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Massachusetts
- **Decided:** April 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10201957

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LINCOLN LATHAM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action
v. ) No. 24-10130-PBS
)
TINA HURLEY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

April 23, 2024

SARIS, D.J.
Pro se Plaintiff Lincoln Latham (“Latham”) initiated this
action by filing a “Petition for Reproducing a Record of Parole”
which was entered on the docket as Latham’s complaint. Dkt. No.
1. Latham also filed a “Motion for Discovery.” Dkt. No. 2.
Because Latham is a prisoner, this action is subject to
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A
authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint if the claims
therein lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, fail to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (screening). In conducting this review, the
Court liberally construes the pleadings because Latham is
proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972).
As an initial matter, Latham has not paid the $405 filing
fee for this action. Latham is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis because he is subject to the “three-strikes” provision
at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 See e.g. Latham v. Mici, No. 1:23-cv-
11897-RGS (D. Mass. Oc. 2, 2023) (finding that Latham has had

“three strikes” and is unable to proceed in forma pauperis
unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury).
Next, Latham has not commenced an action because a
complaint has not been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil
action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”).
Latham’s petition seeks to have the Massachusetts Parole Board
and certain parole board members provide to Latham general
information concerning the parole process in the Commonwealth.
Absent the filing of a complaint, the action is subject to
dismissal. Moreover, even if the Court construed Latham’s
petition as a complaint, it fails to present an actual case or
controversy. The judicial power of the United States is limited

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is not permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis:
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
to “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.
1. “Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may
adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis
v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (citations
omitted). Here, Latham fails to present this Court with a case

or controversy as required by the Constitution.
Thus, on this record, and because it is unclear whether
Latham intended to initiate a new civil action by filing his
“Petition for Reproducing a Record of Parole,” this action will
be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff seeking to reopen.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED in its entirety
without prejudice to Latham seeking to reopen this action within
28 days of the date of this Order, by filing (1) a Motion to
Reopen, (2) a complaint, and (3) either payment of the $405
filing fee or a statement showing cause why the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) do not bar him from proceeding without
prepayment of the filing fee. The Clerk shall terminate this

action from the Court's dockets.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10201957. Public record. Not legal advice.