Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants Daniel J. Tutungian leave to proceed in forma pauperis but denies without prejudice his motion for service by the United States Marshals Service. On preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court concludes that the complaint does not plausibly plead federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Averhealth or the state court employees. The court directs Tutungian to file an amended complaint within 35 days or face a possible recommendation of dismissal without prejudice as to the state-law claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Tutungian adequately demonstrated inability to pay the filing fee and was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a § 1983 claim against Averhealth by showing that its conduct was fairly attributable to the state.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged due-process claims against the Family Court employees based on alleged fabrication of evidence, misrepresentation of test results, and docket manipulation.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an equal-protection violation based on the alleged need to pay for an elective drug test.
- Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded a claim supporting original federal subject matter jurisdiction so that the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
- Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the complaint before dismissal.
Holdings
- The plaintiff adequately showed that he was unable to pay the filing fee and was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
- A court may preliminarily review an in forma pauperis complaint and dismiss claims that are malicious or frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant.
- The complaint did not sufficiently plead a federal claim supporting original subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff was required to amend if he wished to continue the action.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege that Averhealth acted under color of state law or that its conduct was fairly attributable to the state merely because it performed drug testing under contract with the Family Court.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege due-process violations by Plante, Callahan, Goldberg, or Matsuo because the allegations of evidence fabrication, misrepresentation, and docket manipulation were conclusory or contradicted by the plaintiff's own allegations.
- Family Court personnel are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for acts involving discretionary judgment in resolving disputes or carrying out orders of the appointing judge.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege an equal-protection violation based on Tutungian's having to pay out of pocket for an elective drug test.
- The plaintiff was granted thirty-five days to file an amended complaint sufficiently pleading at least one claim over which the court could exercise original subject matter jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” (at 2)
“they have a sua sponte duty to confirm the existence of jurisdiction in the face of apparent jurisdictional defects.” (at 2)
“A private party cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless their conduct can be “fairly attributable to the State.”” (at 5)
“Any determination of the import and reliability of the results was left to a judicial officer.” (at 6)
“If Tutungian wishes to pursue this action, he must, within thirty-five (35) days, file an amended complaint in which he sufficiently pleads at least one claim over which the court may exercise original subject matter jurisdiction.” (at 8)
Factual background
Tutungian alleged that Averhealth, a private contractor used by the Massachusetts Trial Courts, reported a positive cocaine result from a September 2022 hair-follicle test. He claimed the test was unreliable and contrasted it with a negative test that he voluntarily obtained and paid for from another laboratory, Omega. He further alleged that Family Court personnel mischaracterized the Omega test, retained the Averhealth results in the court docket, and engaged in improper docket and scheduling conduct during his divorce proceeding. The complaint asserted federal due-process and equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims.
Procedural history
Tutungian filed a federal complaint arising from his divorce proceeding in the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court. Before defendants were served, the magistrate judge reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), considered subject matter jurisdiction and the plausibility of the federal claims, and concluded that the complaint did not sufficiently plead a claim supporting original federal jurisdiction. The court allowed thirty-five days for an amended complaint and stated that failure to amend could result in a recommendation of dismissal.