Houston et al v. City of Brockton et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
OC HOUSTON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-12276-DJC
)
CITY OF BOSTON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CASPER, J. 	April 8, 2026
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis as moot, D. 2, in light of it granting Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, D. 4. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, the Court grants
him until May 8, 2026 to file an amended complaint.
I. 	Background
OC Houston, a resident of Easton, Massachusetts, has initiated this action by filing a pro
se complaint. D. 1. With the complaint, Houston filed an application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs (also referred to as a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis). D. 2. Three weeks later, he filed a second application. D. 4.
The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “for deprivation of liberty and
reputation without due process (stigma-plus doctrine), defamation per se under M.G.L. c. 231 §
92, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” See D. 1 at ¶ 1. The Defendants
are the City of Brockton and the City of Easton (collectively, the “Municipal Defendants”); Officer
Michael J. Cesarini and Sergeant Mark Ferretti (collectively, the “Police defendants”); and the
Case 1:25-cv-12276-DJC Document 5 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Brockton Enterprise/Gannett Media. Id. at ¶¶ 4-8. 	Houston seeks “compensatory and punitive
damages for Defendants’ false and reckless statements that Plaintiff was ‘convicted of indecent
assault on a child under 14,’ which were published and remain accessible online, and which
continue to inflict ongoing harm.” Id. at ¶ 2.
Houston alleges that “[i]n or about 2012, Officer Cesarini entered into official records that
Plaintiff had been convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, knowing the
statement was false.” Id. at ¶ 9. As to Sergeant Ferretti, Houston alleges that he “subsequently
relayed this false conviction claim to the Brockton Enterprise, knowing it was unverified and
untrue.” Id. at ¶ 10. Houston alleges that the Brockton Enterprise “published the accusation on
its front page, and the article remains available online to this day, perpetuating ongoing
reputational harm.” 	Id. at ¶ 11. 	Houston alleges that the Brockton Enterprise as well as the
Brockton and Easton police departments have refused his repeated demands for correction. Id. at
¶ 12.
Four counts are listed in the complaint as follows: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell Claims)
against the Municipal Defendants; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (individual liability) against the Police
Defendants; (3) defamation per se against all Defendants; and (4) negligent and intentional
infliction of Emotional Distress against all Defendants. Id. at 2. 	For relief, Houston seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief. Id.
II. 	In Forma Pauperis
Upon review of Houston’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 4, the Court
concludes that he is without income or assets to pay the filing fee. The Court, therefore, ALLOWS
D. 4 and permits Houston to proceed in forma pauperis. Given the allowance of D. 4, the Court
DENIES the earlier motion to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 2, as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-12276-DJC Document 5 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 5

3
III. 	Screening of the Complaint
When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the filing fee, summonses
do not issue until the Court reviews the complaint and determines that it satisfies the substantive
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 	The in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to
dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the claims therein lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, fail to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Additionally, the Court “has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own subject matter
jurisdiction.” McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). “If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). “[T]he party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court carries the burden of proving its
existence.” Calderon–Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting
Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because Houston is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his complaint generously. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st
Cir. 2004).
IV. 	Analysis
Speaking broadly, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for the violation of a federal right by a
person acting under the color of state law, but its application is not without limitations. Claims
brought under § 1983 are subject to the statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims
under state law. Ayala-Sepulveda v Municipality of San German, 671 F.3d 24, 28–29 n.3 (1st
Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The applicable statute of limitations is three years. See Mass. Gen.
Laws c. 260, § 2A (Massachusetts has three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims);
Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 2001). Here, 2012 is the only date mentioned in
Case 1:25-cv-12276-DJC Document 5 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Houston’s complaint. D. 1 at ¶ 9. Because of the limited allegations concerning the timeline of
events, the Court cannot discern whether Houston is attempting to bring claims that would be time-
barred. Any alleged wrongdoing by the defendants appears to have occurred on or about 2012.
Presuming that to be the case, Houston’s § 1983 claims appear to be barred by the statute of
limitations.
To the extent Houston may seek to assert a § 1983 claim against the Brockton Enterprise
and/or Gannett Media, there are no facts alleged that they are state actors, as required, within the
meaning of § 1983. See Antoine v. Star Ledger of New Jersey, No 09-1827, 2010 WL 1838611
(D.N.J. May 6. 2010), aff'd, 409 F.App'x 492 (3d Cir. 2010) (finding no state action and dismissing
§ 1983 claims brought against media outlet where a plaintiff alleged that the defendant newspaper
reported a false story).
Here, the only federal claim that would provide a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) is Houston’s § 1983 claim, which appears
untimely and is subject to dismissal as it does not appear that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1) where there appears to be lack of complete diversity between the parties.
V. Plaintiff May File an Amended Complaint
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Houston has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. If he chooses to pursue this action, he must file an amended
complaint by May 8, 2026. The amended complaint must clearly identify each defendant and each
defendant’s alleged misconduct and the timing of same. Houston should set forth facts as to who
did what to whom, when, where, and why. In the “Statement of Claim” section of any amended
complaint, plaintiff should provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;
Case 1:25-cv-12276-DJC Document 5 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5
and . . . a demand for the relief sought[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Plaintiff should put each
claim into a numbered paragraph, and each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
The filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint. 	Brait
Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, Div. of Capital Asset Mgt., 644 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 2011). If there
are allegations in the original complaint that Houston still wishes to rely upon, he must include
them in the amended complaint. 	If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in accordance with
the Order, this action likely will be dismissed.
VI. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. 	The first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 2, is DENIED as moot
and the second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 4, is ALLOWED.
2. 	If Houston wishes to pursue this action, he must, by May 8, 2026, file an amended
complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint. If he fails to do so by the
May 8th deadline, the Court will likely dismiss this action.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Denise J. Casper
Denise J. Casper
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-12276-DJC Document 5 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 5