United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
RULING ON CERTAIN PENDING MOTIONS, AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY
H. RICH III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges federal
constitutional violations against a long list of putative
defendants, including the attorneys general of the United
States and the states of Maine and New Hampshire; appears to
challenge a New Hampshire statute and various federal
statutes; and objects to the alleged secret use of certain
forms of technology by law enforcement agencies.
following motions filed by the plaintiff have been referred
to me: Motion for return of service form (ECF No. 3); Motion
for leave 12/14/2015 to [F]eb. 3[, ] 2016 (ECF No. 4); Motion
for Extension of Time (ECF No. 10); Motion for Appointment of
Standby Attorney (ECF No. 11); Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 13); Motion to Seal (ECF No. 19); Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 21); Motion to Add Expert
Witnesses (ECF No. 24); Motion for Service (ECF No. 25);
Motion for time of service by [U]nited [S]tates [M]arshals
(ECF No. 30); Motion to add governor as a key witness (ECF
No. 33); Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 34); Motion
for sanction (ECF No. 35); and Motion to Extend Time (ECF No.
41). Also referred is the Motion for Screening Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) filed by the United States Attorney
General (ECF No. 22).
the plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 21), but recommend that the
court dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). If adopted by the court, this
recommendation means that the remaining motions filed by the
plaintiff would be moot.
United States Attorney General’s motion for screening
under section 1915(e)(2), ECF No. 22, is unnecessary. Where a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
filed in a civil action, this court reviews each complaint
under that statute. Because the plaintiff has filed an
objection to the United States’ motion, ECF No. 23,
grant the motion, rather than dismiss it as moot. Screening
under section 1915 of pro se complaints from
plaintiffs who seek in forma pauperis status is
within the court’s discretion. This court’s
practice of performing such screenings is not subject to
forma pauperis status is available under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). However, section 1915(e)(2)(B) also
provides, in relevant part:
[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
(B) the action or appeal --
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
[under 28 U.S.C. § 1915] are often made sua
sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare
prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of
answering such complaints.” Nietzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); see also Mallard
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. S. D. Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08
(1989) (“Section 1915(d), for example, authorizes
courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’
action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do
so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”)
plaintiff’s affidavit establishes that he receives
$488.67 monthly in disability payments, $271.00 monthly in
public assistance, and $16.00 monthly in food stamps. He
essentially has no savings, he and his spouse own a 1994
Chevrolet (not otherwise specified) and a 2003 Ford Taurus,
and he sends money to his spouse and child, who live
overseas. He resides with his parents. He states that he
borrowed the money to pay the filing fee for ...