Dominguez v. F Devens Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ELIJAH DOMINGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
F. DEVENS HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-12364-MJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 5, 2026
JOUN, D.J.
Plaintiff Elijah Dominguez, (“Dominguez” or “Plaintiff”) who is in custody at FMC Devens
and proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint without payment of the filing fee or a motion seeking
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. In addition, he filed motions for permanent
injunction, for appointment of counsel, for discovery, for hearing and for service of the complaint.
For the reasons stated below, Dominguez’ motions are denied. If Dominguez wishes to
proceed with this action, he must (1) either pay the filing fee or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed
in forma pauperis with a copy of his inmate account statement; and (2) file an Amended Complaint.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Dominguez initiated this lawsuit by filing his one-page Complaint titled “Medical
Malpractice Lawsuit.” [Doc. No. 1]. The case caption identifies FDC Devens Hospital and Dr.
Kissinger as Defendants. [Id.]. As best can be gleaned from the allegations, Dominguez contends
that rather than using a test, Dr. Kissinger uses “speculation and observation” to make the
determination that an “individual is a danger to him-self or other[s].” [Id.]. He complains of Dr.
Case 1:25-cv-12364-MJJ Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Kissinger’s alleged “fraudulent use of medical license through threats and forced coercion of
involuntary medication without providing proper testing claiming falsely that Mr. Dominguez has a
chemical imbalance without [providing] proper testing.” [Id.]. For relief, he seeks “damages,
[unintelligible], injunctive relief, declaratory relief and nominal damages.” [Id.].
II. 	SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
Because Dominguez is in custody at FMC Devens, the complaint is subject to screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires federal courts to dismiss an action if, among other
things, it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See id. Although the Court liberally
construes Dominguez’ pleadings because he is proceeding pro se, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972), this action is subject to dismissal.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Reading the Complaint generously, the Court finds that it is without jurisdiction to
adjudicate Dominguez’ medical malpractice claim. Allegations of medical malpractice or negligent
treatment do not trigger constitutional protection. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976).
Here, the Complaint does not allege a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and given the fact
that the parties are located in Massachusetts, this Court is without diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Assuming Dr. Kissinger is a federal employee that works at FMC Devens, Dominguez may
seek to bring a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Bivens doctrine allows a plaintiff to vindicate certain constitutionally-
protected rights through a private cause of action for damages against federal officials in their
individual capacities. See DeMayo v. Nugent, 517 F.3d 11, 14 (1st Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court
has recognized few contexts where Bivens claims may be available, including one type of prisoner
civil rights claim arising under the Eighth Amendment. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 131
Case 1:25-cv-12364-MJJ Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(2017) (citing Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 20-23 (1980) (Bivens remedy available for Eighth
Amendment medical care claim)).
If Dominguez wishes to pursue this action, he will be provided with additional time to
address the filing fee and file an amended complaint.
V. 	CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:
(1) 	The motion [Doc. No. 2] for permanent injunction; the motion [Doc. No. 5] for
appointment of counsel, the motion [Doc. No. 6] for discovery, the motion [Doc. No. 8] for hearing
and the motion [Doc. No. 9] for service of the complaint are DENIED.
(2) 	If Dominguez wishes to proceed with this action, he must (1) either pay the filing fee
or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis with a copy of his inmate account
statement; and (2) file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the requirements discussed
above.
(3) 	Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order within thirty-five (45) days, that
is by April 20, 2026, will likely result in dismissal of this action.
So Ordered.
/s/ Myong J. Joun
United States District Judge
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-12364-MJJ Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 3