Vargas v. Mass Dept of Children and Families et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MICHELLE VARGAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
25-12171-FDS
ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
Plaintiff Michelle Vargas, who is proceeding pro se, has brought an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that employees of the Commonwealth’s Department of Children and
Families (“DCF”) wrongfully removed her children from her custody.1 For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
I. 	Background
In her original complaint, plaintiff named DCF and two DCF employees as defendants.
(Dkt. No. 1). On January 23, 2026, the Court issued an order directing plaintiff to file an
amended complaint if she wished to proceed with this action. (Dkt. No. 5). The complaint did
not make any factual allegations concerning the individual defendants, and DCF is not subject to
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court stated that the amended complaint had to identify the
alleged misconduct of each defendant, and further said that plaintiff should follow the directions
1 According to DCF records submitted by plaintiff, her children were born in 1996, 1998, and 2004. (Dkt.
No. 7-3 at 11).
Case 1:25-cv-12171-FDS Document 9 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
of the form complaint to “[s]tate how each defendant was involved and what each defendant did
that . . . violated the plaintiff’s rights, including the dates and places of that involvement or
conduct,” and that she would need to “[a]ttach additional pages” to the form complaint to
adequately identify the alleged misconduct of each defendant.
On February 3, 2026, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 7).2 The
complaint names as defendants three DCF employees (Kalah Dasilva, Carolyn Taylor, John
Civello) and an attorney for plaintiff’s daughter (Ann Crowly). The statement of the claim
consists of the following:
My kids was taken without due process. I have done every thing asked even got
an evaluation that states there is nothing wrong with me. They let my daughter
[A.G.] die in her [illegible word] that controls seizures. Made false accusations
on me. Now using disability why I can’t parent.
Amend. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff seeks “18 yrs of emotional damages” and “due process.” Id.
With the amended complaint, plaintiff submitted thirteen pages of exhibits. (Dkt. No. 7-
3). Those included a 2016 letter indicating that a psychological and parenting evaluation of
plaintiff was underway, id. at 3; a May 16, 2022 letter from defendant DaSilva informing
plaintiff that DCF was closing her family’s case because she had “successfully completed the
tasks and developed the skill [they] agreed on,” id. at 6; and DCF case notes by defendant
Civello, id.at 10-14.
II. 	Discussion
The amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While it
broadly alleges that plaintiff’s children were removed from her custody without due process, it
does not identify the alleged misconduct of each specific defendant. The exhibits to the amended
2 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with her amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 8).
Because the Court granted the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that plaintiff filed with her original
complaint, the second in forma pauperis motion will be terminated as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-12171-FDS Document 9 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
complaint mention two of the defendants, but the documents do not explain what each defendant
did that allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights. The amended complaint does not provide each
defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Furthermore, it does not “contain actual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
It also appears that this action is time-barred.3 The statute of limitations period for a
claim under § 1983 is three years.4 Thus, once plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have
discovered that the defendants’ alleged misconduct injured her, she had three years to file a
lawsuit concerning that injury. See Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., Inc., 408 Mass. 204, 205-06 (1990)
(stating that a claim accrues “when a plaintiff discovers, or any earlier date when she should
reasonably have discovered, that she has been harmed or may have been harmed by the
defendant’s conduct”). Plaintiff commenced this action on August 1, 2025. For this case to have
been timely filed, her claim could not have accrued any earlier than August 1, 2022. The
amended complaint does not identify any event relevant to her claim that occurred on or after
that date.
3 A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if the facts, treated as true, show that
the claims are time-barred. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
4 See Poy v. Boutselis, 352 F.3d 479, 483 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that Section 1983 “borrows the
appropriate state law governing limitations unless contrary to federal law.”); M.G.L. ch. 260, § 2A (stating three-
year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Fincher v. Town of Brookline, 26 F.4th 479, 485-86 (1st Cir.
2022) (applying three-year limitations period under M.G.L. ch. 260, § 2A Massachusetts to claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983).
Case 1:25-cv-12171-FDS Document 9 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
So ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: April 8, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-12171-FDS Document 9 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 4