Hey, there! Log in / Register

For second time in two weeks, federal judge tells owner of derelict Dorchester three decker to go away

Yet another federal judge has told the owner of the remains of a three decker at 97 Mt. Ida Rd. to leave the federal courts out of his dispute over the state sanitary code, under which the city has been trying to have the building fixed or razed since it was heavily damaged in a 2011 fire.

In an order last week, US District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton rejected James Dickey's request for a temporary restraining order to stop a receiver - appointed by state housing court - to clean up the property so he can determine whether it can be repaired or saved. Gorton's order came two weeks after another federal judge, William Young, denied Dickey's request for temporary restraining order because there was no emergency that needed immediate attention. Gorton did tell Dickey he could come back to federal court - but only after he has exhausted all of his options in state court.

Federal judges have told Dickey several times in recent years they are not going to get involved in a dispute over state health regulations - but Dickey keeps filing lawsuits and motions in federal court.

Dickey, who lives in Sudbury, now alleges city officials and state housing-court judges are conspiring against blacks by condemning property in minority neighborhoods and selling it off. City officials, and now the receiver appointed by housing court, retort that's not true, but that even if it were, Dickey could not sue over it because he is white.

On Oct. 12, a judge in Eastern Housing Court in Boston rejected Dickey's demand to fire the receiver and denied his request to argue on behalf of the LLC he set up to own the property, against which the city has brought its actions, because state law requires LLCs to be represented in court by actual lawyers, and Dickey, who is not a lawyer, has always represented himself.

The receiver has borrowed $20,000 to clean up the property and take other actions to get it ready for sale at auction. If the receiver does sell the property, he would subtract his costs from the auction price.

However, the whole case could now be headed to the Supreme Judicial Court, acording to the court docket.



Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!


The state should sue him to cover the time in court he keeps racking up for this frivolous nonsense. His goal is clearly to be a nuisance and tally up taxpayer money with all of this.

Voting closed 4

I just can't imagine what possible reason this kook would have for putting up this big a fight. There is just no logic to it whatsoever. How does a person this far gone have the resources to own multiple properties in the first place?

Voting closed 5

Crazy people are often allowed to purchase property, even when they have a history of mismanaging it.

Voting closed 4

It is called inheritance.

Voting closed 13

The BRA/BPDA have the power of eminent domain. Why hasn't the BPDA saved the city money by declaring eminent domain? Then, while Dickey proceeds with his insane and false filings the city can unload the degraded property and help the neighbors.

Voting closed 1

Do you think Dickey would be less litigious when faced with an eminent domain claim? If he's this much of a pain in the butt when he was merely asked to clean up his place, imagine what he'd be like if he had to face the prospect of losing the property entirely.

Voting closed 3

There IS a joke or two in there...sooomewhere

Voting closed 2