Docket Tracker
Tag Cloud
Filter Dockets By
Latest docket updates in "insurgency"
Subscribe: [Atom] [RSS]
Entry #17 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 30, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
STATUS REPORT Status of Summons Service by Lucas Connor. (Connor, Lucas) (Entered: 09/30/2025) [Read More]
Entry #16 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 12, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Summons Issued [Read More]
Entry #15 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 8, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 11 Motion to Preserve Evidence. Parties have a general duty to preserve relevant evidence once it has notice of litigation. PerezGarcia v. PR Ports Auth., 871 F. Supp.2d 66, 69 (D.P.R. 2012) (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y.2003)). The duty to preserve evidence arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated. Gordon v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 2d 306, 314 n.58 (D. Mass. 2013) (citing Velez v. Marriott PR Mgmt., Inc., 590 F.Supp.2d 235, 258 (D.P.R.2008)). Here, summonses did not issue for service of the original complaint and an amended complaint has been filed. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the amended complaint is subject to further screening. This denial is without prejudice to renewing such request if a summons issues for service of the amended complaint. (SF) (Entered: 09/08/2025) [Read More]
Entry #14 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 8, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ORDER entered. Summons to Issue re 9 Amended Complaint filed by Lucas Connor. (SF) (Entered: 09/08/2025) [Read More]
Minute entry from 2025-09-08 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 8, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Order on Motion to Preserve Evidence [Read More]
Entry #13 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 8, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
EXHIBIT Audio in email by Lucas Connor. (Connor, Lucas) (Entered: 09/08/2025) [Read More]
Entry #12 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 7, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Letter/request (non-motion) from Lucas Connor, Plaintiff, Pro Se . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Aubrey Cottle AKA Kirtaner joining in the defamation in the role of Bernard's business partner on a coin project called $Anon)(Connor, Lucas) (Entered: 09/07/2025) [Read More]
Entry #11 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Sep 3, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
First MOTION to Preserve Evidence "Box said by defendant to contain blood" by Lucas Connor.(Connor, Lucas) (Entered: 09/03/2025) [Read More]
Entry #10 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Jul 19, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
APPENDIX/EXHIBIT 4:24-cv-40127-MRG by Lucas Connor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Account monetization paystub from Bernard, # 2 Exhibit False claim by Bernard followed by threat from an associate of his)(Connor, Lucas) (Entered: 07/19/2025) [Read More]
Entry #9 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Jun 13, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
AMENDED COMPLAINT 4:24-cv-40127-MRG against Bernard Robert Goldsmith, filed by Lucas Connor. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement This is a clearer version of the complaint., # 2 Exhibit This is an image of the box Plaintiff sent to Defendant in November 2022. The tweet was posted September 22, 2024., # 3 Exhibit Text message exchange between Defendant and his ex-wife Ariana that Defendant posted in public., # 4 Exhibit Text message exchange between Plaintiff and Defendant, dated March 3, 2023, # 5 Exhibit Email exchange between Defendant and Davis Police Chief Pytel, posted publicly by Defendant, # 6 Exhibit Threats by group incited by Defendant, dated April 27, 2023, # 7 Exhibit Threats by group incited by Defendant, dated April 27, 2023, # 8 Exhibit Threats by group incited by Defendant, dated April 27, 2023, # 9 Exhibit PDF of email from Planet Storage in Norwood indicating dates of payments missed and pending sale of unit, # 10 Exhibit List of things Defendant had falsely accused Plaintiff of in 2023-2024, posted by Defendant in April 2024, # 11 Exhibit Further claims of menstrual blood being mailed, # 12 Exhibit Claim of dead songbirds being mailed, # 13 Exhibit Incitement of swatting with map to Plaintiff's apartment, # 14 Exhibit Implication of physical threat from local follower)(Connor, Lucas) (Entered: 06/13/2025) [Read More]
Entry #8 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on May 16, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER REQUIRING AN AMENDED COMPLAINTIf Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff must file, within 28 days of the date of this Order (i.e., on or before June 13, 2025), an amended complaint setting forth a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint if the claims are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).When examining the sufficiency of the pleadings, the Court considers whether the plaintiff has pled enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). In conducting this review, the Court must liberally construe plaintiff's complaint because it is a pro se filing. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004). Plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, filed a complaint invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction to assert claims against two California defendants. However, the facts alleged against Defendant Janet Goldsmith are insufficient to make out a claim of negligence. As to the claims against Defendant Bernard Goldsmith, it is unclear which alleged actions form the basis of the claim for intentional inflection of emotional distress and the complaint fails to clearly identify precisely which statements attributed to the defendant form the basis of the defamation claim as well as the alleged injury.To the extent Plaintiff wishes to proceed, an amended complaint -- a new stand-alone document -- that states a plausible claim must be filed. Any amended complaint must identify with precision which statements and actions by Defendant Bernard Goldsmith form the basis of the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Similarly, any amended complaint must identify the actions, or inactions, by Defendant Janet Goldsmith that form the basis of the negligence claim. An amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Brait Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, Div. of Capital Asset Mgt., 644 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 2011), and therefore Plaintiff should repeat in the amended complaint any allegations in the original complaint that Plaintiff wishes to be part of the operative complaint along with sufficient allegations to state a plausible claim. If an amended complaint is filed, it will be further screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).SO ORDERED. (SF) (Entered: 05/16/2025) [Read More]
Minute entry from 2025-05-16 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on May 16, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Order [Read More]
Minute entry from 2025-05-16 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on May 16, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se [Read More]
Entry #7 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on May 16, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting 4 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. Pro se litigants must have an individual PACER account to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account.Pro se e-filing account Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-se.htm.If you already have a PACER account with E-Filing access as a pro se litigant, you do not need to register again, but you must email tracy_mclaughlin@mad.uscourts.gov with the docket number so your account can be updated allowing you to E-file. (SF) (Entered: 05/16/2025) [Read More]
Entry #7 in United States v. Sealed, 1:24-mj-00559
Filed under insurgency on Mar 27, 2025 [See all in United States v. Cottle]
ORDER GRANTING USA's 6 Motion to Unseal case as to Aubrey Cottle (1). Signed by Judge Dustin M. Howell. (klw) (Entered: 03/27/2025) [Read More]
Entry #6 in United States v. Sealed, 1:24-mj-00559
Filed under insurgency on Mar 27, 2025 [See all in United States v. Cottle]
MOTION to Unseal Case by USA as to Aubrey Cottle. (klw) (Entered: 03/27/2025) [Read More]
Minute entry from 2025-03-27 in United States v. Sealed, 1:24-mj-00559
Filed under insurgency on Mar 27, 2025 [See all in United States v. Cottle]
CASE UNSEALED as to Aubrey Cottle. Original Complaint and Warrant to remain SEALED due to personal identifiers. (klw) [Read More]
Minute entry from 2025-03-27 in United States v. Sealed, 1:24-mj-00559
Filed under insurgency on Mar 27, 2025 [See all in United States v. Cottle]
Case Unsealed [Read More]
Entry #6 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Mar 3, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Request for Court Order by Lucas Connor. (JB) (Entered: 03/03/2025) [Read More]
Entry #5 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Mar 3, 2025 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Copy of Spoilation Letter by Lucas Connor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(JB) (Entered: 03/03/2025) [Read More]
Entry #4 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Oct 17, 2024 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Lucas Connor.(JB) (Entered: 10/17/2024) [Read More]
Entry #3 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Oct 17, 2024 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Lucas Connor.(JB) (Entered: 10/17/2024) [Read More]
Entry #2 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Oct 17, 2024 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Margaret R. Guzman assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy. (JB) (Entered: 10/17/2024) [Read More]
Minute entry from 2024-10-17 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Oct 17, 2024 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
Notice of Case Assignment [Read More]
Entry #1 in Connor v. Goldsmith, 4:24-cv-40127
Filed under insurgency on Oct 17, 2024 [See all in Connor v. Goldsmith]
COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Lucas Connor. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form, # 4 Proposed Summons)(JB) (Entered: 10/17/2024) [Read More]