Poole v. Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JASMINE POOLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS REGISTRY OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-40132-MRG
ORDER
March 3, 2026
GUZMAN, D.J.
Plaintiff Jasmine Poole of Worcester, Massachusetts, initiated this action by filing a civil
rights complaint against the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (“RMV”), MassDOT, an
RMV hearing officer, the RMV Registrar and the coordinator of the chemical test refusal
program. ECF 1. Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining order and for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis were denied and the complaint was dismissed for failing to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and based on principles of abstention and the anti-injunction act.
ECF 6.
On September 11, 2025, plaintiff filed an emergency motion for leave to file her first
amended complaint. ECF 8. Although she states that she attaches her “First Amended
Complaint,” the only attachment is her “Affidavit in Support of Amended Complaint.” ECF 8-1.
Almost 2 weeks later, on October 1, 2026, she filed a civil rights complaint with the following
defendants listed in the case caption: D’Vonte Peters, Nicholas Zanchi, Douglas Police
Department, Town of Douglas, John P. Stapleton, and Lisa J. Wells. ECF 9. The complaint was
entered on the docket as plaintiff’s amended complaint. The following month, plaintiff filed an
Case 4:25-cv-40132-MRG Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
emergency notice of filing error. ECF 11. In her notice, she explains that her October 1, 2025
filing was intended to initiate a new civil action and not an amendment to the complaint filed in
the instant action. Id. 	However, this action was dismissed and her motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis was denied. Poole has not resolved the filing fee. To the extent Poole seeks
to pursue an action against the defendants named in her October 1st complaint, she must
commence a new civil action and pay the $405 filing fee or obtain leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee.
Upon review of the pending motions, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. 	The emergency motion for leave to file (ECF 8) is DENIED.
2. 	The emergency notice of filing error and request for immediate docket correction
(ECF 11) is DENIED. To the extent Poole seeks to pursue a new action, she must commence a
new civil action by filing a complaint and paying the $405 filing fee or obtaining leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee.
3. 	The Clerk shall enter a final order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret R. Guzman____________
MARGARET R. GUZMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 3, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-40132-MRG Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 2