Linardon v. Boston Housing Authority et al

United 	States 	District 	Court
District of Massachusetts
Kelechi 	Linardon,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
}
}
}
Plaintiff ,
V. 	Civil Action No .
22-11834-NMG
Boston 	Housing Authority,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
In 	t h is 	case , 	prose 	plaintiff 	Kelechi 	Linardon
( "plaintif f " 	or 	" Linardon " ) 	has 	filed 	a 	62 - page 	complaint
challenging 	actions 	taken 	by 	the 	Bos ton 	Housing 	Authority 	( " BHA "
or 	"defendant " ) 	with 	respect 	to 	her 	federal 	housing 	voucher .
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	defendant ' s 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	(Docket 	No .
56) 	under 	Fed . R. Civ . P . 	8 (a) 	and 	12 (b) (6) , 	(7) 	and 	(8) . 	Because
the 	complaint 	lacks 	a 	short 	and 	plain 	statement 	showing 	the
plaintiff 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief 	under 	Rule 	8(a) , 	the 	claims 	will
be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice .
I. 	Background
The 	facts 	are 	well 	documented 	in 	the 	previous 	Order 	of 	this
Court . 	(Docket 	No . 	37) . 	In 	essence , 	plaintiff 	received 	approval
for 	a 	federal 	housing 	voucher 	granting 	her 	funds 	to 	rent 	a 	two-
- 1 -
Case 1:22-cv-11834-NMG Document 58 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 5

bedroom 	apartment 	that 	could 	accommodate 	her 	disability . 	Once
she 	found 	such 	an 	apartment , 	defendant 	determined 	that 	it 	could
subsidize 	only 	$ 2 , 500 	of 	the 	$3 , 790 	monthly 	renta l . 	Plaintiff
claims 	that 	defendant 	intentionally 	prevented 	her 	from 	renting
the 	desired 	apartment 	because 	of 	her 	disability 	and 	race .
Plaintiff 	filed 	her 	complaint 	in 	October , 	2022 , 	naming 	the
BHA , 	Boston 	Mayor 	Michelle 	Wu 	and 	Massachusetts 	Governor 	Charlie
Baker 	as 	defendants . 	Soon 	thereafter , 	plaintiff 	moved 	for 	a
preliminary 	injunction 	(Docket 	No . 	11) . 	In 	December , 	2022 ,
defendants 	Wu 	and 	Baker 	filed 	oppositions 	to 	the 	preliminary
injunctions 	and 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	the 	complaint . 	Defendant 	BHA
joined 	in 	the 	oppositions 	to 	the 	preliminary 	injunction 	but 	did
not 	file 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss .
In 	February , 	2023 , 	the 	Court 	denied 	p lai ntiff ' s 	motion 	for
a 	preliminary 	injunction 	and 	allowed 	the 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	of
defendants 	Wu 	and 	Baker .
In 	August , 	2025 , 	the 	Court 	set 	a 	scheduling 	conference .
Upon 	BHA ' s 	failure 	to 	appear , 	the 	Court 	instructed 	BHA 	to 	show
cause
why 	a 	default 	judgment 	should 	not 	be 	entered
against 	it 	for 	failing 	to 	timely 	respond 	to
the 	complaint 	or 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Local
Rules 	of 	this 	Court 	with 	respect 	to 	the
previously 	set 	scheduling 	conference .
In 	response , 	the 	BHA 	indicated 	that 	an 	administrative 	error
resulted 	in 	its 	failure 	to 	calendar 	the 	scheduling 	conference
- 2 -
Case 1:22-cv-11834-NMG Document 58 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 5

but 	did 	not 	address 	its 	failure 	to 	file 	any 	responsive 	pleading.
It 	did , 	howe ver , 	shortly 	thereafter 	file 	the 	pending 	motion 	to
dismiss , 	which 	plaintiff 	timely 	opposed .
I. 	Motion 	to Dismiss
A. Timeliness
Defenda n t 	was 	s erv ed 	i n 	Novemb er , 	2022 , 	and 	filed 	a 	motion
for 	extension 	of 	time 	to 	file 	an 	answer 	to 	January 	13 , 	2023. 	It
filed 	no 	responsive 	pleading 	by 	that 	date 	and 	requested 	no
further 	extensions . 	Defendant ' s 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	was 	filed 	on
August 	14 , 	2025.
That 	defendant 	filed 	its 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	two - and-a - half
years 	late , 	without 	requesting 	leave 	or 	providing 	explanation 	as
to 	its 	tardiness , 	is 	unprofessional . 	The 	Court 	i s 	with in 	its
authority 	to 	deny 	the 	motion 	as 	untimely 	but , 	in 	this 	case ,
there 	is 	sufficient 	reason 	to 	overlook 	the 	delay . 	First ,
defendant ' s 	motion 	largely 	reiterates 	its 	opposition 	to
plaintiff ' s 	motion 	for 	preliminary 	injunction , 	filed 	in
December , 	2022 , 	in 	which 	defendant 	stated 	that 	a 	for t hcoming
mot i o n 	to 	dismiss 	would 	be 	duplicative . 	Furthermore ,
plaintiff ' s 	complaint 	is 	without 	meri t 	and 	readily 	dismissible
as 	explained 	below .
B. Rule 	(8) (a)
In 	civil 	cases , 	plaintiffs 	are 	required 	to 	present 	a 	shor t
and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is
- 3-
Case 1:22-cv-11834-NMG Document 58 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 5

entitled 	to 	relief. 	Fed . R . Civ . P . 	Rule 	8 (a) (2) . 	Where 	a
plaintiff 	appears~ 	se , 	her 	complaint 	should 	be 	liberally
construed , 	Padmanabhan 	v . 	Hulka , 	308 	F . 	Supp . 	3d 	484 , 	496 	(D .
Mass . 	2018) , 	but 	that 	does 	not , 	however , 	rel ieve 	her 	from 	the
procedural 	requirements . 	A complaint 	must 	still 	describe 	the
essential 	nature 	of 	the 	claim , 	id ., 	and 	a 	district 	court 	may
dismiss 	a 	complaint 	for 	failure 	to 	adhere 	to 	that 	requirement .
Kuehl 	v . 	F . D. I . C ., 	8 	F . 3d 	905 , 	908 	(1st 	Cir . 	1993) .
The 	Court 	concludes 	that 	the 	complaint 	violates 	the
requirement 	of 	Rule 	8 (a) ( 2) 	in 	that 	it 	consists 	of 	62 	pages 	of
transitions 	between 	vague 	claims 	of 	discrimination 	and 	abuse ,
published 	news 	articles 	and 	anecdotes 	of 	personal 	suffering . 	It
does 	not 	state 	a 	clear 	legal 	complaint 	to 	which 	defendant 	shou l d
be 	expected 	to 	reply 	and 	is 	insufficient 	to 	provide 	the 	basis 	of
any 	meaningful 	litigation .
Because 	the 	Court 	conc l udes 	that 	the 	co mp laint 	should 	be
dismissed 	under 	Rule 	(8) (a) (2) , 	it 	declines 	to 	address 	whether
it 	should 	also 	be 	dismissed 	pursuant 	to 	Rule 	12(b) .
- 4-
Case 1:22-cv-11834-NMG Document 58 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 5

ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons , 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	of
defendant 	(Docket 	No . 	56) 	is 	ALLOWED 	and 	the 	claims 	o f 	pla in t iff
a re 	DISMISSED WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE.
So 	ordered.
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judg e
Dated : 	November /2 , 	2025
- 5-
Case 1:22-cv-11834-NMG Document 58 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 5