Glenn v. Doordash et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TERENCE N. GLENN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOORDASH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-13769-BEM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, J.
Plaintiff Terence N. Glenn, who is proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a
complaint, an emergency motion to appoint counsel, and an application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs (also referred to as a motion or application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis). Dkts. 1-3.
By Memorandum and Order dated December 12, 2025, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the emergency motions and advised Plaintiff
that if he wished to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint that sets forth a
basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt.
10. 	Plaintiff was advised that the sparse allegations in the complaint fail to meet the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 5. Among other things, Plaintiff was
advised that an amended complaint shall fully describe the incidents as well as each Defendant’s
conduct. Id. at 6.
Case 1:25-cv-13769-BEM Document 27 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff was granted an extension of time until January 20, 2026, to file an amended
complaint. 	Dkt. 14. 	Since that time, plaintiff filed several emergency motions, and amended
complaint and a first amended complaint. Dkts. 20, 22, 23, 26.
Even with the more liberal construction accorded a pro se litigant’s pleading, the first
amended complaint still fails to state any factual matter that, if accepted as true, would allow
Plaintiff to prevail on any identifiable cause of action. Although Plaintiff reduced the number of
defendants, the factual allegations are not pleaded in a manner such that Defendants can reasonably
respond.
Based upon the foregoing, and in accordance with the Court’s Memorandum and Order,
Dkt. 10, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 	The pending
motions, Dkt. Nos. 20, 26, are DENIED AS MOOT.
So Ordered.
/s/ Brian E. Murphy
Brian E. Murphy
Dated: January 14, 2026 	Judge, United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-13769-BEM Document 27 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 2