MA Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss

Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss Complaint

    The Massachusetts Attorney has chosen to plead to the Plaintiff;s Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss. Most motions to dismiss 
are based on the failure of the Plaintiff to state an appropriate relief that the Court can order. The Plaintiff has to show that he was harmed in some way defined by the statute.

This instant Motion to Dismiss filed by the Attorney General also includes the assertion that the Plaintiff is barred by the Statute and by Sovereign Immunity from filing a Complaint in Court.

In response the Plaintiff can write a Opposition Memorandum asking the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss and continue on with Court proceeding.  Below is the Postilion Memorandum. 

******************************************************

                   COMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS

                                                                                                      WORC       SS                          SUPERIOR COURT          Docket No. 1785 CV00873 D                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                         ********************************                                                                                                                                      

GORDON T. DAVIS, Plaintiff                                           

                                                                                              

                             Vs.                                                           

                                                                                            

Massachusetts Human Resources Division,                                                                                                                    

Office of Massachusetts Attorney General                                                                                                                                                               

Defendants                                                                        

********************************

PLAINITFF’S OPPOSIITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

In accordance with Mass. Rules of Civil Procedure the Plaintiff, Gordon T. Davis, opposes the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss dated July 31, 2017. The arguments in the Motion to Dismiss are erroneous or immaterial  to the Complaint. Alternatively the Defendants’ Motion contains errors of material facts nullifying the Motion and are the basis for quashinq.

The Defendants based their Motion for Dismissal on the following assertions.

a.     The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff  has received the documents he has requested.

DENIED. The Plaintiff denies he has received any documents whatsoever from the Massachusetts Human Resource Division.

b.     The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD).

DENIED:  M.G.L. Chapter 149, Sec. 52C allows the Plaintiff to sue HRD. This right of private action has been affirmed in Kessler vs. Cambridge Health care.

c.      The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff is barred by Sovereign Immunity.

DENIED:  M.G.L. Chapter 149, Sec. 52C waives Sovereign Immunity for public entities and their agents.

d.     The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which the court can grant relief.

DENIED:  Case law has established that the Plaintiff has a right of private action, (Kessler vs. Cambridge Healthcare). The relief sought by the Plaintiff  is that the Plaintiff is allowed access to his personnel record in the custody of the HRD and allowed to correct any errors in it.

e.     The Defendants’ assert that the AG decision not to enforce M.G.L. Chap. 149, Sec. 52C can not be reviewed by the Court due to Separation of Powers.

DENIED:  The Plaintiff has NOT demanded that the Court review the AG’s decision regarding the enforcement of M.G.L. Chap. 149, Sec. 52C against the HRD. The Plaintiff has only asked that the Court order the AG to clarify its policy regarding the enforcement of the subject statute in accordance with the mission statement of the AG.

Constitutional Officers: Attorney General

“… the Attorney General's Office will offer helpful resources to individuals wherever possible but is not allowed to provide legal assistance to individual citizens of Massachusetts”

f.    The Defendants assert in their Memorandum of Law that the Plaintiff is seeking his “MCAD personnel file” from HRD.

Denied: This is an error of material fact. The Plaintiff’s demands do NOT include the provision of a personnel file in the custody of the MCAD or any document from the MCAD. The Plaintiff’s demands for this case are for the personnel file at the HRD. The HRD personnel files are distinct from the personnel file in the custody of the MCAD.

This error of material fact should by itself nullify the legif the instant Motion to Dismiss. It is also grounds for the Court to deny or quash the Defendants’ Motion.

Attached with this Opposition Memorandum is a Memorandum of Law further elaborating the Plaintiff’s arguments for Denial of the Defendants’ instant Motion.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to Deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Sincerely,

-----------------------                                         ------------

Gordon T. Davis                                            Date                            Pro Se Plaintiff