Amato v. Perrotta, et al
| Matthew Alexander Amato |
| Lemeiuex, John Perrotta and Raspallo |
| 1:2025cv00568 |
| October 29, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island |
| Mary S McElroy |
| Patricia A Sullivan |
| Prisoner Petitions: Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 27 REPLY MEMORANDUM re #23 Response to Motion, #25 Memorandum in Support . (Anastacio, Jasmin) |
| Filing 26 MOTION for an Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #25 Memorandum in Support, #22 Reply to Response filed by Lemeiuex, John Perrotta, Raspallo. Responses due by 4/27/2026. (Anastacio, Jasmin) |
| Filing 25 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by Matthew Alexander Amato in support of #23 Response to Motion. (Attachments: #1 Email) (Gonzalez Gomez, Viviana) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE: Request for a Docket Sheet by Matthew Alexander Amato. Mailed Updated Docket Sheet (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 23 RESPONSE In Opposition to #20 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Replies due by 4/14/2026. (Attachments: #1 Docket Sheet, #2 Email)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 22 REPLY to Response re #19 Response to Motion filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. (Attachments: #1 Email)(Hill, Cherelle) |
TEXT ORDER. The Plaintiff has, for the second time, requested that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in the prosecution of this case. As the Plaintiff is aware, there is no right to counsel in civil cases, and the Motion may be denied when there are no exceptional circumstances justifying the assistance of court-appointed counsel. Desrosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). While Mr. Amato protests that this case is very complicated, it has been complicated in his Complaint by the injection, it seems, of every legal principle and cause of action that he thinks could possibly be relevant. To the contrary, based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the legal issues are not very complex. The Court does not have the unlimited resources of pro bono counsel and this case does not satisfy the Desrosiers standard. The Motion is therefore DENIED (ECF No. #17 ). So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 4/3/2026. (Potter, Carrie)
|
| Filing 21 Letter from Matthew Alexander Amato re: Counsel (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 20 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Lemeiuex, John Perrotta, Raspallo. Responses due by 4/9/2026. (Attachments: #1 Supporting Memorandum)(Anastacio, Jasmin) |
| Filing 19 RESPONSE In Opposition to #17 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Lemeiuex, John Perrotta, Raspallo. Replies due by 3/24/2026. (Anastacio, Jasmin) |
| Filing 17 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Responses due by 3/16/2026. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 16 Letter from Matthew Amato Re: Attorney (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Hill, Cherelle) |
TEXT ORDER granting #15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Set/Reset Deadlines: Answers due 3/26/2026. So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 2/25/2026. (Potter, Carrie)
|
| Filing 15 MOTION for an Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint filed by Lemeiuex, John Perrotta, Raspallo. Responses due by 3/6/2026. (Anastacio, Jasmin) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE re: Copy of Updated Docket Sheet by Matthew Alexander Amato. Mailed updated docket sheet. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
TEXT ORDER. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. #12 ) and Motion for Limited, Targeted Discovery (ECF No. #13 ) are DENIED without prejudice until such time as the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond to the complaint and the Court has set a scheduling order. So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 1/28/2026. (Potter, Carrie)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to Clarify the Record and for Limited, Targeted Discovery filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Responses due by 2/4/2026. (Attachments: #1 Targeted Discovery Request for Production, #2 Targeted Discovery Request for Production to Court, #3 Targeted Discovery Request for Production to DOC, #4 Request for Admissions, #5 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Responses due by 2/4/2026. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Jasmin Anastacio on behalf of Lemeiuex, John Perrotta, Raspallo (Anastacio, Jasmin) |
| Filing 10 Notice of Acceptance of Service filed by Lemeiuex. Lemeiuex served on 12/26/2025, answer due 2/24/2026. (Shaw, Matthew) |
| Filing 9 Notice of Acceptance of Service filed by Raspallo. Raspallo served on 12/26/2025, answer due 2/24/2026. (Shaw, Matthew) |
| Filing 8 Notice of Acceptance of Service filed by John Perrotta. John Perrotta served on 12/26/2025, answer due 2/24/2026. (Shaw, Matthew) |
TEXT ORDER. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Testimony (ECF No. #6 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Any discovery or trial motions will be considered after the parties have been served, or accepted service, responded to the Complaint and a discovery schedule has been set. So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 12/17/2025. (Potter, Carrie)
|
| PLRA Filing fee: $ 30.20 received - receipt number 100003230. Total Amount Paid to date: $30.20. (Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF SERVICE: The Court has granted IFP status and ordered the complaint to be served. Pursuant to the Agreement on Service between the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Attorney General, this Notice constitutes service as directed by the Court. Within 30 days, the RI Attorney General shall file a Notice of Acceptance of Service or a Notice of Declination of Service or both if necessary on behalf of the defendant(s) named in the complaint. # Please click here to access the Acceptance of Service form or # Please click here to access the Declination of Service form .Notice of Acceptance or Declination of Service due by 12/26/2025. (Potter, Carrie) |
TEXT ORDER finding as moot #4 MOTION for Service of Process. So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 11/25/2025. (Potter, Carrie)
|
TEXT ORDER. The Plaintiff has filed with his Complaint a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (ECF No. #2 ), which requires the Court to determine whether the Complaint states a plausible federal claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (plausible claim standard); 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (screening required). The Plaintiff has alleged that he has a qualified disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and that when entering the Providence Superior Court he was prohibited from bringing with him a certified service dog. He also includes a supplemental state law claim of assault. Taking the allegations as true, as the Court must in a screening decision, the Complaint states a plausible federal claim, and because the Plaintiff has demonstrated indigency, the IFP Motion is GRANTED. Because there is no right to counsel generally in civil cases, and because the factual circumstances seem at this stage straightforward with no complicated legal issue involved, the Court DENIES the Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. (ECF No. #3 ). The granting of IFP status does not excuse the Plaintiff from paying the filing fee, but it allows him to pay in installments in accordance with the statutory formula. The Court, after examination of his Inmate Account (ECF No. 3) has calculated the first installment at $67.16 and the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) is directed to remit that amount to the Court. Thereafter, each month the ACI shall remit 20% of the amount of the income received into the Account during the preceding month so long as the balance is above $10.00. In accordance with the agreement between the Court and the Rhode Island Attorney General, service shall be electronic. So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 11/25/2025. (Potter, Carrie)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Compel Testimony Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Responses due by 12/3/2025. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 5 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Matthew Alexander Amato. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Service of Process filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Responses due by 11/12/2025. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Mailing, #2 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. Responses due by 11/12/2025. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. (Attachments: #1 Indigency Form, #2 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) (Attachment 1 replaced on 10/29/2025) (Hill, Cherelle). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT, filed by Matthew Alexander Amato. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope)(Hill, Cherelle) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Mary S. McElroy and Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan. (Hill, Cherelle) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Rhode Island 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.
TEXT ORDER. The Plaintiff has, for the second time, requested that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in the prosecution of this case. As the Plaintiff is aware, there is no right to counsel in civil cases, and the Motion may be denied when there are no exceptional circumstances justifying the assistance of court-appointed counsel. Desrosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). While Mr. Amato protests that this case is very complicated, it has been complicated in his Complaint by the injection, it seems, of every legal principle and cause of action that he thinks could possibly be relevant. To the contrary, based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the legal issues are not very complex. The Court does not have the unlimited resources of pro bono counsel and this case does not satisfy the Desrosiers standard. The Motion is therefore DENIED (ECF No. #17 ). So Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 4/3/2026. (Potter, Carrie)