Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BALDI v. U.S., 13-11282-RWZ. (2013)

Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts Number: infdco20130806868 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2013
Summary: ORDER RYA W. ZOBEL, District Judge. On May 20, 2013, plaintiff John A. Baldi filed a self-prepared civil action asserting environmental claims concerning state and federal properties, under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. He alleged the defendants failed to cleanup the hazardous waste and pollutants resulting from a mound of tires near a vernal pool, in various stages of decay. On July 12, 2013, this Court, pursuant to its prelimin
More

ORDER

RYA W. ZOBEL, District Judge.

On May 20, 2013, plaintiff John A. Baldi filed a self-prepared civil action asserting environmental claims concerning state and federal properties, under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. He alleged the defendants failed to cleanup the hazardous waste and pollutants resulting from a mound of tires near a vernal pool, in various stages of decay.

On July 12, 2013, this Court, pursuant to its preliminary screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1195(e), issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 14) directing plaintiff to demonstrate good cause in 35 days why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons stated therein. The Memorandum and Order also required plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint setting forth claims in accordance with Rule 8.

On July 24, 2013, plaintiff filed an Objection to the Court's Order Dated 7/12/13 and Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 17). Plaintiff asks this Court to rescind/strike/vacate portions of the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 14), and to instruct the clerk to issue summonses, confirm the presence of the tire dump, and issue an order instructing defendant Kenneth Kimmel not to allow the DEP or any other agency to tamper with the physical presence of the tires until after this Court holds a hearing, and, if his requested relief is denied, allow him to file an interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals before dismissal of his Complaint.

The plaintiff's Objections are overruled and his Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 17) is DENIED in its entirety.

On or before August 26, 2013, plaintiff shall comply with the directives contained in the Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 14) to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, and to file an Amended Complaint, in default thereof, this case will be dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer