Scott v. BC Baystate Place LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TIMOTHY SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BC BAYSTATE PLACE LLC,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 26-30167-MGM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
October 13, 2026
MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.
I. 	I NTRODUCTION
On October 8, 2026, pro se Plaintiff, Timothy Scott, filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1), along
with an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (colloquially
referred to as a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis) (Dkt. No. 2). Plaintiff identifies the
defendant as BC Baystate Place LLC. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ I(B).) Plaintiff alleges violations of the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. at ¶ II(A).)
Plaintiff is a defendant in a summary process brought against him, his partner, and his son in
the Massachusetts Housing Court (Western Division), BC Baystate Place LLC v. Scott, et al., No.
26H79SP001503.1 Plaintiff alleges that the civil trial is scheduled for October 13, 2026, in the
Western Housing Court, and that his partner, Sylvia Scott, is “too sick” to appear in court. (Dkt. No.
1 at ¶ III(A).) Plaintiff further alleges his partner provided a doctor’s note to the trial court in
support of a motion to postpone the trial, but to no avail. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the state
1 The docket in the state court, of which the court may take judicial notice, see Wiener v. MIB Grp.,
Inc., 86 F.4th 76, 81 n.3 (1st Cir. 2023), is available through https://www.masscourts.org (last visited
Oct. 8, 2026).
Case 3:26-cv-30167-MGM Document 4 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
housing court from proceeding with the trial, as scheduled, and to postpone the trial for 60 days. (Id.
at ¶ IV.)
For the reasons set forth below, the court allows Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, but it ORDERS that this action be DISMISSED
with prejudice.
II. 	T HE M OTION FOR L EAVE TO P ROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court concludes
that he has shown he is unable to pay the $405 filing fee. The court will thus GRANT this motion.
III. 	P RELIMINARY R EVIEW
The court may consider jurisdictional matters sua sponte. See Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 273
(2025) (“A federal court must always satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction.”). The court may also
consider whether the exercise of its jurisdiction is appropriate when a related state proceeding is
pending. See Guillemard-Ginoria v. Contreras-Gomez, 585 F.3d 508, 517-18 (1st Cir. 2009).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff petitions this court to require the state housing court to stay its proceedings. This
relief, however, is exactly the type of judicial action prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act. See 28
U.S.C. § 2283.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction
to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where
necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The
Anti-Injunction Act “is a necessary concomitant of the [decision of the Framers of the Constitution]
to authorize, and Congress’ decision to implement, a dual system of federal and state courts.” Smith
v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 306 (2011) (quoting Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 146
(1988)). The Anti-Injunction Act’s “core message is one of respect for state courts,” and it
Case 3:26-cv-30167-MGM Document 4 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
“commands that those tribunals ‘shall remain free from interference by federal courts.’” Id. (quoting
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 282 (1970)). Because Plaintiff does not
point to any special circumstances to satisfy the narrow exceptions articulated in the Anti-Injunction
Act, this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over this case.
V. C ONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court allows the Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Dkt. No. 2), and ORDERS that this action be
DISMISSED with prejudice. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case
It is So Ordered.
_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-30167-MGM Document 4 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3