Torres et al v. Archie T. Morrison Elementary et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12_ Filed 03/31/26 Page1of9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

GERARD TORRES et al.,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-12497-WGY

Vv.

ARCHIE T. MORRISON ELEMENTARY,
et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

March 3! , 2026

YOUNG, D.J.

Pro se plaintiffs Gerard Torres and Traci Oliver, who are
proceeding pro _se, bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“§ 1983”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law,
arising from an investigation of reports made to the
Massachusetts Department of Children and Families concern the
plaintiffs’ children. Both plaintiffs have filed a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will grant the in forma pauperis motions and

direct Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint if they wish to

proceed with this action.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12_ Filed 03/31/26 Page 2of9

I. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Upon review of the motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court GRANTS the same.

II. Review of the Complaint

Because Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the

Court may conduct a preliminary review of their complaint and
dismiss any claim that is malicious or frivolous, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2). In conducting this review, the Court
liberally construes the complaint because Plaintiffs are
representing themselves.

A. Plaintiff’s Claims

The factual allegations in the complaint are as follows:

6. On or about January 2, 2024, Plaintiffs’ children

were detained and questioned by school staff and
police without parental notification or consent.

7. Plaintiff were not informed of the questioning,
and children were held from approximately 8:00 AM to
9:10 PM.

8. Police and school officials made false

allegations of abuse, including fabricated statements
about children being hung by underwear, which
Plaintiffs deny.

9. Defendants refused to allow Plaintiffs to leave
their property, constituting unlawful seizure.

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 _ Filed 03/31/26 Page3of9

10. Defendants contacted DCF based on false

information, resulting in distress and threats to

remove the children.

11. DCF ultimately found the allegations unsupported.

12. Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress,

reputational harm, and violation of their

constitutional rights.

Compl. GI 6-12.

In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek compensatory,
punitive, and statutory damages and “{i]njunctive relief
ordering Defendants to cease unlawful questioning of children
without parental notice and consent.” Compl. at 4.

Plaintiffs attached to the complaint approximately 65 pages
of documents, including what appear to be DCF records concerning
interviews with the children on January 2, 2024.

B. Discussion

1. Claims for Based on Injuries to Children

Plaintiffs state that they are proceeding “individually and
on behalf of” their minor children. They do not name their
children as parties to this action.

Speaking broadly, parents have a protected liberty right
under the Fourteenth Amendment to make decisions pertaining to
“the care, custody, and control” of their children.” Troxel v.

Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). However, to the extent

Plaintiffs are bringing claims based on injuries to their

3

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 Filed 03/31/26 Page4of9

children (or to anyone else), they cannot do so. Parties do not
have standing to assert the claims for injuries suffered by

others. See Bingham v. Massachusetts, 616 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.

2010).

Further, Plaintiffs cannot represent their children.
Federal law provides that, “[iJn all courts of the United States
the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or
by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Although this statute permits
persons to represent themselves, it does not allow unlicensed
laypersons to represent co-plaintiffs or any other individuals.

See O’Diah v. Volkswagen of Amer., Inc., 91 Fed. App’x 159, 160

(lst Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“We have interpreted [28 U.S.C.

§ 1654] as barring a non-lawyer from representing anyone but
himself.”). This is true even when the unrepresented injured
party cannot represent themselves because they are a minor or
incompetent.! See id. (“[E]ven assuming that [plaintiff] is
incompetent and needed a representative, such as his father, to
sue on his behalf .. . his father would still need to be

represented by an attorney.”); Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found.

of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61-62 (2d Cir.1990) (holding that

1 Minors and incompetent persons May sue only through a duly
appointed representative, next friend, or guardian ad litem.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 Filed 03/31/26 Page5of9

non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel when bringing
an action on behalf of his minor child).
2. Standard of Review

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

The “short and plain” statement of the claim must provide a
defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 540, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) {quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

To “show that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief,” the
complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

true” to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Igbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Id. at 678. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The
plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, “‘naked assertion[s]’

5

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 Filed 03/31/26 Page 6of9

devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” do not suffice. Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, the well-plead
allegations must “sustain recovery under some actionable legal

theory.” N.R. by & through S.R. v. Raytheon Co., 24 F.4th 740,

746 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d

301, 305 (lst Cir. 2008)).
4. Archie Morrison Elementary School
Plaintiffs have named Archie Morrison Elementary School as
a defendant. Archie Morrison Elementary School is merely a
building. It is not a suable entity. Accordingly, the party
will be dismissed as a defendant in this action.
5. The Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual
with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be
excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12132. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a claim under
the ADA. Neither Plaintiff has identified a disability or how
any failure to accommodate that disability excluded them from or
denied them the benefit of the services or programs of a public

entity.

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 Filed 03/31/26 Page /7of9

5. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Section 1983 permits a lawsuit against a “person” acting
“under color” of state law who deprived the plaintiff of his
federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, a state (including
its agencies and departments) is not a “person” that is subject

to suit under § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,

491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Thus, Plaintiffs cannot maintain a
claim under § 1983 against DCF.

In addition, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state a
§ 1983 against Superintendent Jim Lee or Principal John Riordan.
Plaintiffs refer to “defendants” collectively but do not
specifically identify the alleged misconduct of these two
defendants. Further, interviewing a child without the consent
or presence of a parent does not necessarily infringe ona

parent’s right. See, e.g., Barbara v. Miller, 809 F.3d 840, 847

(6th Cir. 2015) (“[M]lere investigation by authorities into child
abuse allegations without more ... does not infringe upon a
parent's right to custody or control of a child.”) (quoting

Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 691 (6th Cir.2006))).

A municipality (such as the Town of Braintree) may be sued
under § 1983. However, it cannot be held liable under § 1983
merely because its employees violated a plaintiff's

constitutional rights. Instead, to sufficiently claim that the

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 _ Filed 03/31/26 Page 8of9

municipality participated in the employees’ unconstitutional
conduct, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the
municipality’s policy or custom was “the ‘moving force’ behind

the employee’s constitutional violation.” Salvidar v. Racine,

818 F.3d 14, 20 (quoting Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Here, Plaintiffs do not
identify a municipality policy or custom that resulted ina
violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
6. Filing of an Amended Complaint

If Plaintiffs wish to pursue this action, they must file an
amended complaint in which they identify the alleged misconduct
of each defendant with particularity and is otherwise consistent
with the above discussion. The amended complaint will
completely replace the original complaint, and the Court will
evaluate the sufficiency of the amended complaint without
reference to the original complaint. Exhibits are permitted,
but they are not a substitute for including pertinent
allegations in the body of the amended complaint, and the
relevance of the exhibits must be clear.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders:

1. The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are

GRANTED.

Case 1:25-cv-12497-WGY Document12 _ Filed 03/31/26 Page9of9

2. Archie T. Morrison Elementary School is DISMISSED as a
defendant in this action.

3. If Plaintiffs wish to proceed with this action, they
must, within thirty (30) days, file an amended complaint in
accordance with the discussion above. Failure to do so will
result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

4. The motions concerning retaliation (Docket Nos. 8, 10)
are DENIED without prejudice.

5. The motion for service of process by the United States
Marshals Service (Docket No. 7) is DENIED without prejudice. If
the Court later orders that summonses issue, the Court will give
Plaintiffs the option of arranging service by the USMS without
any cost to Plaintiffs.

SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM G. pong
DISTRICT JUSGE