Brietzke et al v. Cross County Mortgage et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
SANDY BRIETZKE and 	)
JOSHUA BRIETZKE, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-10048-DJC
)
CROSS COUNTY MORTGAGE, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
CASPER, C.J. 	February 6, 2026
Plaintiffs Sandy and Joshua Brietzke initiated this action by filing a complaint, motion for
temporary restraining order and an application to proceed in District Court without prepaying fees
or costs (also known as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis). D. 1-3.
By Order, dated January 8, 2026, D. 5, the Court denied the motion for temporary
restraining order, D. 2, and Sandy Brietzke’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 3,
without prejudice. The Court’s Order provided that, on or before January 22, 2026, Sandy Brietzke
must file a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and Joshua Brietzke must sign the
complaint and file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under his own signature. D. 5
at 1-2.
On January 22, 2026, Sandy Brietzke filed a response. D. 6. Joshua Brietzke did not sign
the response. Id. Sandy Brietzke states that she “represents both Plaintiff’s [sic].” Id. at 3. In
her response, Brietzke contends that she “should not be charged fees, or costs for the lawful
constitutional right to petition this court in this matter.” Id. at 2. Sandy Brietzke states that she
“moves this Honorable Court to understand and see that the Plaintiff is asking to proceed without
Case 1:26-cv-10048-DJC Document 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
court fees.” 	Id. at 1. 	Sandy Brietzke explains that she already provided her financial situation
when she “submitted the original paperwork for suit, [which was accompanied by] an AFFIDAVIT
OF TRUTH AND FACTS.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). She further states that she does “not
own anything nor [does she] have assets.” 	Id. at 6. 	She states that she is “attaching [an]
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUST AND STATUS Maxim of Law.” 	Id.; see D. 6-1 at 5-13 (attaching
documents including “Affidavit of Trust and Status, Maxim of Law that begins that the affidavit
“confirms the status of a living, breathing, sentient living on the land and establishes the highest
order authorized identity and identifiers for this being”).
Although Sandy Brietzke filed a response to the Court’s January 8, 2026 Order, she failed
to file a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Her response, D. 6, does not satisfy
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) which requires “an affidavit that includes a statement
of all assets . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Id.; see
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 205 (1993)
(noting purposes of § 1915(a) affidavit requirement). Although Sandy Brietzke filed her
“Affidavit of Trust and Status,” it does not address her assets or the deficiencies in her initial
application to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 5 at 1.
While the Court must construe a pro se litigant’s pleading liberally, pro se litigants are not
excused from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this
district. F.D.I.C. v. Anchor Props., 13 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir.1994); see Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d
36, 43 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules).
Accordingly, for the failure to comply with the prior Order, D. 5, this action is hereby
Case 1:26-cv-10048-DJC Document 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
/s Denise J. Casper
Denise J. Casper
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10048-DJC Document 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3