Bakri v. Cruz Management Company, Incorporated

2

II. Review of the Complaint

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may conduct a preliminary review of her Complaint and dismiss the pleading if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court may also sua sponte consider relevant jurisdictional issues. See Guillemard-Ginoria v. Contreras-Gomez, 585 F.3d 508, 517- 18 (1st Cir. 2009). The court construes Plaintiff's pleading liberally because she is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), which requires that a complaint include a "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The requirement of a

"short and plain" statement of a claim "proscribes the obfuscation of the plaintiff's claims."

Kensu v. Corizon, Inc., 5 F.4th 646, 651 (6th Cir. 2021). "Unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage." Miranda v. United States, 105 Fed. App'x 280, 281 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1281, at 522 (2d ed. 1990)).

Plaintiff's typed complaint, which is 254 pages long (excluding 44 pages of exhibits), is coherent and organized, in the proper font, spacing and margins. However, the pleading is not

"short and plain." The Complaint contains an enormous quantity of factual allegations which are

3

unnecessary for a pleading.¹The court appreciates that should this action proceed, the factual material that Plaintiff discusses in the complaint may be relevant to the ultimate adjudication of Plaintiff's claims. But, at the pleading stage of the litigation, the overlong complaint risks obfuscating Plaintiff's claims and delaying proceedings.

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended complaint that contains

"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff should carefully consider the required elements for any causes of action that she seeks to bring, and limit her factual allegations to those facts necessary to show that the elements of these causes of action are met.

III Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

In her Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff asks, inter alia that the court "[h]alt the state-level eviction proceedings while Plaintiff's case proceeds in this Court" and "enjoin[] the Defendants from proceeding with the state court eviction because the Plaintiff does not believe she will receive a fair hearing in the Housing Court." [Doc. No. 3 at 12].

"Proceedings in state courts should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and ultimately [the United States Supreme] Court." Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287, (1970). The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, prohibits the Court from providing the relief Plaintiff seeks. This statute provides: "A court of

4

the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The Anti-Injunction Act's "core message is one of respect for state courts," and it "commands that those tribunals 'shall remain free from interference by federal courts.'" Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 306 (2011) (quoting Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 282 (1970)). Put differently, the Anti-Injunction Act "says that federal courts cannot by injunction govern the conduct of state litigation," and that "federal courts must abstain from disrupting ongoing state litigation in all the most extraordinary situations." Mannix v. Machnik, 244 Fed. App'x 37, 39 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiff asks this court to order the Housing Court to stop the summary process proceeding against Plaintiff. This relief falls squarely within the judicial action prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act. Thus, the court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. To the extent Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief that is not discussed above, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for preliminary injunctive relief with her amended complaint.

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:

1. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED.

2. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED.

3. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, she must, within twenty-eight (28) days file an amended complaint that contains a "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The amended complaint shall not

5

exceed 35 typed pages, doubled-spaced, 12-point font, and 1-inch margins.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Indira Talwani United States District Judge Dated: October 1, 2025