United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER SCREENING COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E), 1915A
C. NIVISON, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action, Plaintiff Jamie Brown, an inmate in the custody of
the Department of Corrections at the Maine State Prison,
alleges that Defendants, who include individual state
employees and private medical providers, have deprived him of
necessary medical treatment and programs, and have otherwise
required him to live in unsanitary conditions. (Complaint,
ECF No. 1.)
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
3), which application the Court granted (ECF No. 4). In
accordance with the in forma pauperis statute, a preliminary
review of Plaintiff's complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Additionally, Plaintiff's complaint is
subject to screening “before docketing, if feasible or
… as soon as practicable after docketing, ”
because he is “a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
a review of Plaintiff's complaint, I recommend the Court
dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants,
except Plaintiff's official capacity condition of
confinement claim against Defendant Eric Bueno.
Standard of Review
party is proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, ”
inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or
malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“Dismissals [under § 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.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
addition to the review contemplated by § 1915,
Plaintiff's amended complaint is subject to screening
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because Plaintiff
currently is incarcerated and seeks redress from governmental
entities and officers. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a), (c). The § 1915A screening requires courts to
“identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim …; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
considering whether a complaint states a claim for which
relief may be granted, courts must assume the truth of all
well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v.
Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “The relevant question ... in assessing
plausibility is not whether the complaint makes any
particular factual allegations but, rather, whether
‘the complaint warrant[s] dismissal because it failed
in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to
relief plausible.'” Rodríguez- Reyes v.
Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n. 14). Although a
pro se plaintiff's complaint is subject to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
the complaint may not consist entirely of “conclusory
allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard,
” Young v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224,
231 (1st Cir. 2013). See also Ferranti v. Moran, 618
F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980) (explaining that the liberal
standard applied to the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs
“is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required
to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim”).
complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
I have been forced to take medications when I did not need
them. I'm being warehoused in the special management unit
in supermax conditions. I'm denied programs and
treatment. I live in unsanitary conditions. My mail is
tampered with. I don't receive proper medical care.
Keeping me warehoused in a cell without proper mental health
care lack of basic human needs.
(Complaint at 3, ¶ 21.) Plaintiff asserts that as the
result of Defendants' actions, he has experienced certain
mental health issues. (Id. ¶ 22.)
October 12, 2016, letter filed with the Court, Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants have failed “to take
responsibility of their unhuman like unprofessional judgment,
” “think they could violate whoever they feel
like, ” “do not follow their sanitation policies,
” “got everybody on the lower [level] in the IMHU
[Intensive Mental Health Unit] with ants and maggots, ”
“barely let us shower when we're supposed to,
” “are not helping to get us where we need to be,
” and “are disrupting our minds and stressing us
out.” (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff maintains that he is
“all behavioral” and, therefore, he does not
belong in the IMHU. (Id.)
addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff requests proper
medical/mental health care, clean living conditions, and