Concepcion v. Rivera Diaz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MOISES CONCEPCION, Plaintiff, No. 25-cv-12603-JDH v. JESSICA ANGELI RIVERA DIAZ, Defendant. ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION HEDGES, M.J. I. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2025, the Court received Moises Concepcion’s complaint. Docket No. 1.1 Mr. Concepcion, who is self-represented, invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and brings this action against Defendant Jessica Angeli Rivera Diaz for having “violated the plaintiff[’s] constitutional rights by taking the property of the plai[n]tiff, caused financial loss and emotional distress.” Docket No. 1 at 4. On September 29, 2025, the Court issued an order, noting that because the one-sentence complaint does not meet requirements to “at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, [and] where,” Educadores Puertorriquenos En Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004), it is not clear exactly what Mr. Concepcion alleges that Ms. Rivera Diaz did, 1 The Clerk opened a civil action, and the case was assigned pursuant to the Court’s Program for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges. Docket No. 3. or whether that conduct gives rise to claims under the U.S. Constitution. Docket No. 6 at 2. Thus, even when applying the generous review standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Mr. Concepcion’s complaint fails to provide a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Accordingly, the Court ordered Mr. Concepcion to file an amended complaint setting forth a claim over which the court has subject matter jurisdiction, within thirty-five days. Id. at 3. The Court advised that failure to comply with the order may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Id. On November 4, 2025, Mr. Concepcion moved for an extension of time to January 20, 2026 to file an amended complaint. Docket No. 7. The Court granted that extension. Docket No. 8. The deadline for Mr. Concepcion to file an amended complaint has now passed, and he has not done so. II. ORDER The Court directs the case to be returned to the Clerk’s Office for REASSIGNMENT to a District Judge for further proceedings. III. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons set forth above, this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DISMISS this action pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 2 The parties are advised that under the provisions of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72(b), any party who objects to these findings and recommendations must file a written objection with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. The written objection must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection. The parties are further advised that failure to comply with this rule shall preclude further appellate review by the Court of Appeals of the District Court order entered pursuant to this Report and Recommendation. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); see also Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.1988). A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2026 /s/ Jessica D. Hedges United States Magistrate Judge