Browning v. Ames et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civ. No.: 4:25-cv-40025-MRG
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS [ECF Nos. 15, 22]
GUZMAN, J.
For the reasons stated in the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss filings, [ECF Nos. 15, 16, 22,
23], and without opposition from the Plaintiff, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendants’
motions to dismiss. [ECF Nos. 15, 22].
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Rule 8
pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Specifically, a plaintiff’s
complaint must satisfy the two-pronged requirement in Rule 8(a)(2) of “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset,
640 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2011). These statement(s) must give defendant “fair notice of what the . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Here, Plaintiff’s
KIRBY VANCE BROWNING,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL 	AMES, 	DAVID 	LIBBY,
ALFRED A. GRAY, JR., and ROBERT F.
KENNEDY 	COMMUNITY 	ALLIANCE,
INC.,
Defendant.
Case 4:25-cv-40025-MRG Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
complaint fails to meet this burden because it fails to articulate Plaintiff’s claims clearly, provide
the grounds for Plaintiff’s requested damages, and establish any wrongdoing by the named
Defendants.
The Court is mindful of Browning’s pro se status and acknowledges that the Court must
construe his allegations liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Even
under a liberal interpretation of the complaint, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to state a claim for
relief. See Doherty v. Salem Five Cents Sav. Bank, No. 13-40016-TSH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
71726, at *1 (D. Mass. May 21, 2013)(“the complaint must adequately allege the elements of a
claim with requisite supporting facts.”); Harihar v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 15-cv-11880-ADB,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50596, at *14 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2017) (“[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint
is appropriate when the complaint fails to state an actionable claim.” (citations omitted)).
Therefore, the Court must GRANT the pending motions to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2026
/s/ Margaret R. Guzman
Margaret R. Guzman
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-40025-MRG Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2