United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
Thomas Daniel Hale, a/k/a Thomas Daniel Eugene Rheahale, an
inmate at the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex in
Pikeville, Tennessee, filed an action with this Court in
which he evidently attempts to assert a variety of claims
against multiple defendants. While the gravamen of
Plaintiff's filings is difficult to discern, Plaintiff
apparently attempts to assert claims involving social
security benefits, disability rights, habeas corpus, and
other matters. Plaintiff does not identify a defendant
located in Maine, nor any conduct that occurred in Maine.
Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, I recommend the
Court dismiss the matter.
also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff does not appear to qualify for in
forma pauperis status based on the summary dismissal of three
prior in forma pauperis actions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g); see also Hale v. State of Mine Mind and
State of Emergencies, No. 1:16-cv-421 (E.D. Tenn.)
(October 21, 2016, Order Denying Request for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 6). Because Plaintiff does not
qualify for in forma pauperis status and has not paid the
filing fee, dismissal is appropriate.
Plaintiff qualified for in forma pauperis status, dismissal
of Plaintiff's complaint is warranted. 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).
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). Similarly, a lawsuit
by a prisoner against a governmental entity and its officers
is subject to dismissal, sua sponte, if the complaint
“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
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”).
Plaintiff has not asserted a plausible cause of action
against the named defendants. Instead, Plaintiff's
filings consist of references to certain legal authority
(e.g., rules, statutes) and allegations that do not appear
related to each other or the referenced legal authority. In
short, Plaintiff has not asserted an actionable claim.
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss
may file objections to those specified portions of a
magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court is sought, together with a supporting
memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and ...