Opinion
No. 11–P–1901.
2013-03-19
TOAN TANG v. Adam SIMMS & others.
By the Court (GRAHAM, GRAINGER & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Upon review of the record and the briefs, we discern nothing that would cause us to conclude the motion judge's order dismissing the plaintiff's pro se complaint was error.
In a margin note, the judge allowed the motion to dismiss “on the basis of each of the grounds set forth in the defendants' memorandum in support of their motion.”
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated his State and Federal rights by making statements in their written submissions to the court on behalf of their clients (the Framingham police department and others), which (a) contained “distorted, fabricated” misrepresentations regarding his prior convictions in State court, and (b) misrepresented a judicial order entered in a case filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Even crediting the plaintiff's allegations, he has not stated facts upon which relief may be granted ( Mass.R.Civ.P. 12[b][6], 365 Mass. 754 [1974] ) because absolute immunity attaches to an attorney's statements made in judicial proceedings. See Doe v. Nutter, McClennen & Fish, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 137, 140 (1996) (immunity from liability attaches to statements made by attorney in conduct of litigation even if offensive statements uttered maliciously).
The plaintiff entered guilty pleas to five charges supported by statements made by a neighbor who alleged that the plaintiff damaged the neighbor's motor vehicle.
Judgment affirmed.