Jeannite v. Lyndsey life guard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JOEL JEANNITE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-12087-ADB LYNDSEY, Lifeguard, Malden, MA YMCA, Defendant. ORDER BURROUGHS, D.J. Plaintiff Joel Jeannite, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action against “Lyndsey," whom Jeannite identifies as a lifeguard at a YMCA in Malden, Massachusetts. Jeannite also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] and a largely illegible document with the title “Emergency for Violation Civil Rights” [ECF No. 3]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action. I. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. II. Review of the Complaint When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the filing fee, summonses do not issue until the Court reviews the complaint and determines that the complaint is not frivolous or malicious, does not seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, and states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes the complaint because Jeannite is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). According to Jeannite’s Affidavit of Fact [CMF No. 1-1], on November 18, 2022, he and Lyndsey had a short conversation outside of the YMCA building which was punctuated with mutual laughter. The conversation covered a range of topics, including Lyndsey’s sexual orientation (and the fact that Jeannite didn’t want to be involved in a “love triangle”), Lyndsay’s car situation and Lyndsey not feeling comfortable taking Jeannite’s phone number. Jeannite represents that, at the end of the conversation, Lyndsey said she was glad they talked. Jeannite claims that, soon after this conversation, the director of the YMCA reached out to him and told him that his conversation with Lyndsey had made her uncomfortable. In the form complaint, Jeannite’s statement of his claim is as follows: “I engage in a free speech conversation with Lyndsey and she attempt to defame my status with a staff who called me stating the conversation was inappropriate.” Compl. at 4. In the Affidavit of Fact, Jeannite states that the action is “a 1.8 million dollars defamation lawsuit against Lyndsey due punitive pain and suffering. Her wage must be garnish to complete payment. Any asset listed under name must be liquidated.” Affidavit of Fact at 4 (as in original). Jeannite further asserts: “The judge who receive this lawsuit will automatically subpoena Lyndsey phone records, emails and her coworkers phone record to determine motive or evidence for behavior and violating my 1 amendment right to free speech.” Id. (as in original). Jeannite’s assertion that Lyndsey violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech is without any merit. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. By its own terms, the First Amendment only works to prevent the government from [2] abridging the freedom of speech. See, e.g., CBS Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm, 412 U.S. 94 , 114 91973) (holding that the First Amendment restrains “government action, not that of private persons”). The First Amendment does not place any restrictions on the ability of a private party to share the contents of a conversation or express their discomfort about a conversation. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby orders: 1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 2. The “Emergency for Violation Civil Rights” is DENIED. 3. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2/8/2023 /s/ Allison D. Burroughs DATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE