Gabaldon v. City of Norfolk Massachusetts
1:21-cv-10465
| D. Mass. | Mar 22, 2021Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Frank Gabaldon, then incarcerated at USP Tucson, sued alleging constitutional violations arising from his confinement at MCI‑Norfolk and sought $1,000,000 in damages.
- Complaint named the “City of Norfolk” and “County of Norfolk” and incorporated 40 pages of exhibits, but pleaded no individual defendants or specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint.
- Gabaldon filed the suit without paying the $350 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with a certified six‑month prison account statement.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, construing the pro se pleadings liberally.
- The court concluded the named municipal/county defendants were improper because MCI‑Norfolk is a state prison and that monetary damages against the Commonwealth (or its agencies) are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The court ordered Gabaldon, within 42 days, either to pay the filing/administrative fees or file a certified IFP application and to file an amended complaint curing pleading defects and naming individuals or John/Jane Doe defendants, or face dismissal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Filing fee / IFP requirement | Gabaldon filed complaint (no fee or IFP submitted) | N/A (statutory requirement applies) | Gabaldon must pay fees or file IFP with certified 6‑month prison account statement within 42 days |
| Proper defendant / sovereign immunity | Sued “City of Norfolk” and “County of Norfolk” | MCI‑Norfolk is a state facility; claims against the State/its agencies for money damages are barred | City/County are improper; claims for money damages against the Commonwealth or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; individual‑capacity suits remain possible |
| Sufficiency of §1983 pleading (personal involvement) | Alleged unconstitutional conditions (heat) primarily by exhibits | Complaint lacks factual allegations naming individuals or showing personal involvement | Complaint fails to state a plausible §1983 claim; exhibits do not replace required factual pleading; must plead each defendant’s personal actions per Iqbal |
| Amendment instructions / remedy | Sought monetary relief but did not identify individual defendants or facts | N/A | Court granted leave to amend: must file an amended complaint alleging who did what, when, where, how rights were violated, injuries, and requested relief; amended complaint replaces original |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead each official’s personal involvement)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (States and state officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" under § 1983 for money damages)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits that would draw funds from state treasury)
- Davidson v. Howe, 749 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2014) (Eleventh Amendment bars monetary liability payable from state funds)
- Miller v. Town of Wenham, 833 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2016) (elements required to succeed on a § 1983 claim)
- Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148 (1st Cir. 2002) (individual‑capacity claims are not barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings)
- Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008) (an amended complaint replaces the original complaint)