Alexander v. University of Massachusetts Medical School et al
| Christine M. Alexander |
| Terre Marshall, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Kenneth L. Applebaum, Arthur Brewer, Mary Medeiros, Thomas A. Groblewski, Harold W. Clarke, Gary Roden, Luis Spencer, Cynthia Sumner and Robert Jenel |
| 1:2009cv10776 |
| May 13, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Norfolk |
| Richard G. Stearns |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
223
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered.Presently before this court is Defendant Weiners Motion to Strike Letter from Non-Party 220 . This case was dismissed on January 16, 2013. Subsequently, several post-judgment motions were filed, including a Motio n for Reconsideration, a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, a Motion for Relief from Judgment, and a Motion for Court to Approve Plaintiffs Costs. This court ruled on the last of these post-judgment motions on October 28, 2013. On December 2 , 2013, Plaintiffs friend and fellow inmate Joseph Messere wrote this court an Open Letter seemingly styled as a motion to reopen the case. This letter was docketed as entry number 219 .Mr. Messere lacks standing to assert any claims in his own righ t or on Plaintiffs behalf. First, Messere is not a party to this suit, which is closed. Further, Messere does not claim to have suffered any sort of injury.1 Second, to the extent that Messere requests that this court reopen the case on Plaintiffs be half, courts have routinely held that an unlicensed inmate may not act in a representative capacity.2 In his Opposition 221 , Messere appears to argue that he has standing as Plaintiffs next friend.3 Even assuming Messere can show that he has standi ng as Plaintiffs next friend4 and that this court would treat his Open Letter as a motion, however, the motion would be denied. Messere cites no rule or authority in support of his request. This court has already denied Plaintiffs motions for reconsi deration and for relief from judgment. Had Plaintiff wished to further litigate the issues raised in her Complaint, the proper course of action would have been to file an appeal. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motion to Strike 220 is ALLOWED. This case shall remain CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
|
Filing
217
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS entered. This court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the October 9, 2013 Report and Recommendation 215 of Magistrate Judge Collings. For the reasons set forth in the Report andRecommendation, this court hereby orders that Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Approve Plaintiffs Costs 204 is DENIED. Further, this court orders that a total of three hundred seventy-nine dollars and sixty cents($379.60) in taxable costs shall be taxed to Defendant Weiner as costs of the litigation. This case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
|
Filing
136
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
|
Filing
81
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being re-filed by Counsel 76 MOTION for Leave to File Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and ALLOWED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being re-filed by Counsel 77 MOTION to Impound Medical Records Pursuant to the F.R. Civ. P., Local Rule 7.2. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
