Fusco v. US District Court-ME, District Judge

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Anthony J. Fusco
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-1062-JL
John A. Woodcock, Jr.
Report and Recommendation
Appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff Anthony
J. Fusco of Old Orchard Beach, Maine, has filed a complaint
(Doc. No. 1) with addenda (Doc. Nos. 3-10) against John A.
Woodcock, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the
District of Maine. 	The complaint and addenda are before this
magistrate judge for preliminary review. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2).
Standard of Review
The court screens complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding
in forma pauperis to determine, among other things, whether the
plaintiff has asserted any claim upon which relief might be
granted or seeks monetary relief from any defendant who is
immune from the relief sought. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2). 	To determine if the pleading states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court first disregards any
parts of the pleading that amount to legal conclusions; next,
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 8

2
takes as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s
complaint, the inferences reasonably drawn from those facts,
implications from documents incorporated into the complaint, and
facts subject to judicial notice; and finally, construes those
facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff’s theory of
liability. 	See Breiding v. Eversource Energy, 939 F.3d 47, 49
(1st Cir. 2019); Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03
(1st Cir. 2013). 	In determining whether a pro se pleading
states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court
construes the pleading liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Background
In the complaint, filed October 10, 2019, Mr. Fusco accuses
defendant Woodcock of obstruction of justice, aiding and
abetting several felonies, suborning perjury, and breach of
ethics. 	See Compl. (Doc. No. 1), at 1. 	Fusco also accuses
Judge Woodcock of denying him the right to a jury trial. 	See
id. at 2. 	Fusco does not allege any facts in the complaint to
support his accusations. 	In fact, there is nothing in the
complaint that indicates whether Woodcock’s alleged misconduct
took place in a criminal or civil case.
Fusco has attached 60 pages of documents (Doc. No. 1-1) to
the complaint. 	The majority are copies of variously dated
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 8

3
writings by Fusco, interspersed with copies of legal documents,
or pages from legal documents, from cases in Maine state courts
or the federal district court in Maine. 	Fusco’s writings are,
for the most part, narrative diatribes about lawyers, judges,
Maine officials, and others involved in his previous state and
federal cases.
Fusco has filed additional documents (Doc. Nos. 3-10),
totaling about 50 pages, which the court construes as addenda to
the complaint. 	Although some documents are letters Fusco has
addressed to this court, including a postcard asking, “ET-TU
LAPLANTE-ET-TU[?] 	THE LIAR-CHEAT THIEF JOHN A WOODCOCK JR. SENT
(2) U.S. MARSHALS ‘TO NO AVAIL’ PERHAPS ‘YOU’ SHOULD SEND THE
U.S. MARINES,” Feb. 3, 2020 Addendum (Doc. No. 7), the remainder
pre-date the filing of this civil action and generally are along
the same lines as the documents attached to the complaint (i.e.
copies of letters, other writings, newspaper clippings). 	Again,
nothing in the addenda hints at a factual basis for Fusco’s
claims against defendant Woodcock, except the assertion that “in
[Fusco’s] Opinion,” defendant Woodcock took a bribe “[t]o [r]ule
[t]he [w]ay he [d]id[.]” 	Feb. 24, 2020 Addendum (Doc. No. 6, at
1).
From what little the court can decipher of the complaint
and the 110 pages of the other documents Fusco has filed, it
appears Fusco was a plaintiff in a case in Maine state court
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 3 of 8

4
against employees of Unum Life Insurance Company of America, one
or more state employees, and possibly one or more employees of
his former employer, Shalom House, related to how “Unum Life
Insurance Company of America, handled his 2013 claim for long-
term disability benefits pursuant to a group insurance policy
issued by Unum to [Fusco’s] former employer, Shalom House.” 	See
Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1-1, at 23). 	It further appears that
the case was removed from the state court to the federal
district court of Maine, Judge Woodcock presiding. 	What is
clear from the filings is that Fusco is unhappy with the way
Judge Woodcock handled and decided the case.
Discussion
I. 	Venue
Venue is appropriate in the judicial district where all the
defendants reside, or where a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the plaintiff's claims occurred. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b). 	Where the defense of improper venue is “‘obvious from
the face of the complaint and no further factual record is
required to be developed,’” the court may, sua sponte, dismiss
the case. 	Cox v. Rushie, No. CA 13–11308–PBS, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 86794 at *14, 2013 WL 3197655 at *4 (D. Mass. June 18,
2013) (quoting Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 4 of 8

5
Cir.2006)); see also Algodonera De Las Cabezas, S.A. v. Am.
Suisse Capital, Inc., 432 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005).
The undersigned discerns no basis for this case to be filed
in the District of New Hampshire. 	Plaintiff lives in Maine, and
presumably so does Judge Woodcock, making venue proper in the
District of Maine. 	See 28 USC § 1391(b).
II. 	Transfer
This court may transfer a case to another district court
where venue is proper, in the interest of justice or for the
convenience of the parties. 	See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a); 1412. 	It
would not be in the interest of justice to transfer this case to
the District of Maine.
A. 	Judicial Immunity
As a federal judge, Judge Woodcock is immune from civil
lawsuits for the performance of a core judicial function. 	See
Zenon v. Guzman, 924 F.3d 611, 616 (1st Cir. 2019) (“[I]t is an
axiom of black letter law that when a judge carries out
traditional adjudicatory functions, he or she has absolute
immunity for those actions.”). 	If the court were to credit as
true Fusco’s opinion that the defendant took a bribe “[t]o
[r]ule [t]he [w]ay he [d]id[,]” Feb. 24, 2020 Addendum (Doc. No.
6, at 1), the gravamen of Fusco’s claims is that Woodcock acted
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 5 of 8

6
as a co-conspirator with Fusco’s opponents by ruling as he did.
By ruling on Fusco’s case, however, Judge Woodcock was
“performing a core judicial function requiring an independent
exercise of judgment . . . .” 	Harper v. Begley, 37 F.3d 1484,
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 	29344, at *5, 1994 WL 577488, at *2 (1st
Cir. Oct. 19, 1994) (unpublished table decision), making him
absolutely immune from Fusco’s claims, see Zenon, 924 F.3d at
616.
B. 	“Short and Plain Statement” Rule
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) provides that a complaint “must contain . . . a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 	Rule 8(d)
requires that each allegation in the complaint be “simple,
concise, and direct.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10(b) (requiring each numbered paragraph to be “limited
as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances”). 	“The
purpose of a clear and succinct pleading is to give a defendant
fair notice of the claim and its basis as well as to provide an
opportunity for a cogent answer and defense.” 	Belanger v. BNY
Mellon Asset Mgmt., LLC, 307 F.R.D. 55, 57 (D. Mass. 2015)
(citation omitted); see also Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422,
430 (1st Cir. 2006).
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 6 of 8

7
This court cannot determine what Fusco contends defendant
Woodcock did or did not do that caused him harm.
Notwithstanding his claims that Woodcock obstructed justice,
aided and abetted several felonies, suborned perjury, breached
his ethical duty, and denied Fusco a jury trial in his civil
action, Fusco fails to allege or state any facts to support
those claims in his complaint. 	Notably, he left the “Statement
of Claim” section of his form civil complaint blank. 	See Compl.
(Doc. No. 1), at 3.
Furthermore, the attachments to the complaint and the
addenda are mostly incoherent and highly repetitive rantings,
overloaded with irrelevant content, including, for example, an
anecdote of Fusco’s visit to a favorite restaurant, a
Presidents’ Day Quiz, and quotes from Fusco’s favorite movies.
The attachments and addenda also contain superfluous, and in
many cases, inflammatory allegations, as well as so many
personal insults directed at Woodcock and others, that they are
the textual equivalent of white noise. 	In sum, Fusco’s
pleadings fail to comply with Rule 8.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Fusco’s complaint for improper venue, failure to name a
defendant who is not immune from the relief sought, and failure
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 7 of 8

8
to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 4, 2020
cc: 	Anthony J. Fusco, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-01062-JL Document 11 Filed 06/04/20 Page 8 of 8