Doe v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-11645-WGY
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-11921-WGY
ORDER
January 22, 2026
YOUNG, D.J.
Pro se plaintiff “John Doe” has commenced the two above-
captions cases in this Court and filed motions for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (in addition to other motions).
Doe has brought to the Court’s attention that he is under a
state order of guardianship. 	See Doe v. City of New Bedford,
C.A. No. 25-11645-WGY (Dkt. ## 10, 10-1) (sealed). 	In light of
Case 1:25-cv-11921-WGY Document 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that guardianship, it appears that, as a matter of law, Doe
cannot litigate these cases as a pro se litigant.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whether an
individual who is not acting in a “representative capacity” is
has capacity to sue or be sued is determined “by the law of the
individual’s domicile.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). 	In turn, the
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
Whenever an infant or incompetent person, or an
incapacitated person as defined in G.L. c.190B has a
representative, such as a guardian, conservator, or
other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or
defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person,
or incapacitated person as defined in G.L. c.190B.
Mass. R. Civ. P. 17(b). 	In turn, under M.G.L. ch. 190B, an
“[i]ncapacitated person” is defined as “an individual for whom a
guardian has been appointed under part 3 of article V.” 	M.G.L.
ch. 190B § 1-201(22). 	It appears from the papers Doe submitted
that a guardian has been appointed to him under that statute.
If that guardianship is still intact, Doe lacks legal capacity
to bring these lawsuits.1
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders:
1. 	The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
these two actions are GRANTED.
1 This Court is without jurisdiction to vacate or overturn any
state court guardianship order.
Case 1:25-cv-11921-WGY Document 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	The motions to proceed under a pseudonym are
conditionally GRANTED, but the Court will reconsider the issue
should summonses later issue in either of these cases.
3. 	The Court will dismiss these lawsuits without
prejudice unless, within thirty-five (35) days, Doe shows the
Court that he is not subject to a guardianship under M.G.L. ch.
190B §§ 5-301 to 5-313, or he voluntarily dismisses these
actions.
4. 	All other motions are DENIED without prejudice to
renewal should the Court determine that, under state law, Doe
has capacity to sue without being represented by a guardian.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-11921-WGY Document 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 3