Case 1:09-cv-11791-MLW Document 7 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`ALPHONSE R. FERENT, JR.,
`)
`Plaintiff,
`)
`v.
`)
`)
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`)
`ET AL.,
`)
`Defendants.
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`))
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`NO. 09-11791-MLW
`
` March 25, 2010
`
`WOLF, D.J.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On February 20, 2009, plaintiff Alphonse R. Ferent, Jr., a
`pro se litigant, filed a civil complaint against numerous federal
`defendants, including the United States, its officials and
`employees, various judges of the United States District Court for
`the District of Massachusetts, judges of the United States Court
`of Appeals for the First Circuit, former Attorney General Michael
`Mukasey, and former Vice President Richard Cheney. Ferent v.
`United States, et al., Civil Action No. 09-10253-MLW.
`On June 11, 2009, this court issued a Memorandum and Order
`(Docket No. 11) dismissing Civil Action No. 09-10253-MLW with
`prejudice. Thereafter, a further Order (Docket No. 18) issued,
`prohibiting Ferent from re-filing his claims in any fashion.
`Thereafter, on October 9, 2009, in violation of this court’s
`Order, Ferent filed a new civil action (the instant action),
`asserting the same claims as those raised in Civil Action No. 09-
`10253-MLW. Ferent’s cover letter accompanying the complaint
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`ALPHONSE R. FERENT, JR.,
`)
`Plaintiff,
`)
`v.
`)
`)
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`)
`ET AL.,
`)
`Defendants.
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`))
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`NO. 09-11791-MLW
`
` March 25, 2010
`
`WOLF, D.J.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On February 20, 2009, plaintiff Alphonse R. Ferent, Jr., a
`pro se litigant, filed a civil complaint against numerous federal
`defendants, including the United States, its officials and
`employees, various judges of the United States District Court for
`the District of Massachusetts, judges of the United States Court
`of Appeals for the First Circuit, former Attorney General Michael
`Mukasey, and former Vice President Richard Cheney. Ferent v.
`United States, et al., Civil Action No. 09-10253-MLW.
`On June 11, 2009, this court issued a Memorandum and Order
`(Docket No. 11) dismissing Civil Action No. 09-10253-MLW with
`prejudice. Thereafter, a further Order (Docket No. 18) issued,
`prohibiting Ferent from re-filing his claims in any fashion.
`Thereafter, on October 9, 2009, in violation of this court’s
`Order, Ferent filed a new civil action (the instant action),
`asserting the same claims as those raised in Civil Action No. 09-
`10253-MLW. Ferent’s cover letter accompanying the complaint
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-11791-MLW Document 7 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 4
`
`indicated that he intended this complaint to be a "replacement"
`civil action. In addition to asserting all of his prior claims,
`Ferent also named the undersigned as a party in the caption of
`this case, as well as United States Supreme Court Chief Justice
`John Roberts, presumably in support of his allegations of civil
`rights violations by the federal judicial system.
`Along with this new complaint, Ferent filed a Motion for
`Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2). On October
`15, 2009, Ferent filed an Emergency Motion For Preliminary
`Injunctive Relief From Creditors and Bankruptcy (Docket No. 3),
`alleging that all of the Defendants have engaged in a cover
`criminal conspiracy. Later, on October 20, 2009, Ferent filed an
`"Emergency Motion For the Attorney General to Assign a Special
`Prosecutor/Investigator Before This Civil Action Goes Any
`Further" (Docket No. 4).
`Subsequently, this court discovered that Ferent died on
`November 13, 2010. As a result, on March 5, 2010, the Clerk’s
`Office sent a letter to Joanne Ferent (on the presumption that
`she was Ferent’s wife), inquiring whether Ferent’s Estate
`intended to proceed with this litigation.
`On March 16, 2010, this court received a letter from Irene
`Mallett, the Administratrix of Ferent’s Estate. In her letter,
`Ms. Mallett advised the court that, in fact, Joanne Ferent was
`not Ferent’s wife, but his daughter-in-law. Ms. Mallett
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-11791-MLW Document 7 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 4
`
`indicated that she was the appointed Administratrix of Ferent’s
`Estate, attaching a copy of her appointment in the Norfolk County
`Probate and Family Court, and a copy of Ferent’s death
`certificate. Ms. Mallett’s letter requests that this court
`dismiss all actions.
`II. DISCUSSION
`The death of Ferent moots many of the issues raised by his
`re-filing of the earlier, dismissed civil action in violation of
`this court’s Orders. Nevertheless, in view of the request by the
`Administratrix of Ferent’s Estate for a dismissal of this action,
`this court finds that a discourse into the merits of this case is
`not warranted. Rather, the court will construe Ms. Mallett’s
`letter as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I), and will grant the request and enter a
`dismissal of this action at this time.
`In light of this Order, all requests for relief contained in
`Ferent’s complaint, and all requests for relief contained in both
`his Emergency Motion to For Preliminary Injunctive Relief From
`Creditors and Bankruptcy (Docket No. 3) and his "Emergency Motion
`For the Attorney General to Assign a Special Prosecutor/
`Investigator Before This Civil Action Goes Any Further" (Docket
`No. 4), will be DENIED as moot.
`As a additional matter, the court notes that Ferent may have
`sought to reassert claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-11791-MLW Document 7 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 4
`
`("FTCA") that were previously dismissed for lack of subject
`matter jurisdiction due to his failure to exhaust administrative
`remedies under the FTCA. Notwithstanding that Ferent may have
`completed administrative exhaustion, any FTCA claims raised in
`this action will also be dismissed in light of the voluntary
`dismissal.
`Finally, as a housekeeping matter, with respect to the
`filing fee, this court will ALLOW the Motion for Leave to Proceed
`in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) nunc pro tunc.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
`(Docket No. 2) is ALLOWED nunc pro tunc;
`All requests for relief contained in the complaint are
`DENIED, and all requests for relief contained in plaintiff’s
`Emergency Motion For Preliminary Injunctive Relief From
`Creditors and Bankruptcy (Docket No. 3) and his "Emergency
`Motion For the Attorney General to Assign a Special
`Prosecutor/Investigator Before This Civil Action Goes Any
`Further" (Docket No. 4), are DENIED;
`The court GRANTS the request by the Administratrix of
`plaintiff’s Estate for dismissal of this action; this action
`is DISMISSED in its entirety as to all claims.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`/s/ Mark L. Wolf
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
