United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PA UPERIS
AND RECOMMENDED TRANSFER OF THE CASE
H. RICH III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff has filed suit against Stuart Chase, the former
police chief of the Town of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, Rob
Houseman, the former town planner/acting town manager of
Wolfeboro, two other town employees, and the Town of
Wolfeboro itself for federal constitutional rights violations
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as under several
state common law tort theories. See [Complaint] (ECF
No. 1). I grant the plaintiffs request for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, but because venue does not
properly lie in this District and the plaintiff initially
filed the same or similar suits in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire ("USDC/New
Hampshire"), I recommend that the court transfer this
case to the USDC/New Hampshire pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1391(b) and 1406(a).
Application To Proceed in Forma
forma pauperis status is available under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). In her application to proceed pro
se, the plaintiff lists her total monthly income as $1,
811.00, consisting of Social Security payments and $350.00
per month received from a boarder in her house. ECF No. 3
¶ 2. She lists no assets or cash in any bank account.
Id. ¶¶ 4-5. For expenses, she lists a
monthly recurring expense of $300.00 for heating fuel for her
house and has attached to her application copies of bills for
what appear to be a car loan, cable service, car insurance,
homeowners' insurance, a mortgage, health care insurance,
and a tax bill from the Town of Wolfeboro, which range in
dates across 2015 and 2016. Id. ¶ 8 &
attachments thereto. The plaintiff lists no dependents.
Id. ¶ 7. These financial circumstances entitle
her to proceed in forma pauperis and, accordingly, I
grant her petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) Review
Applicable Legal Standard
federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. §
1915, is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal
courts for those persons unable to pay the costs of bringing
an action. When a party is proceeding in forma
pauperis, however, "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" or "seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
[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); see also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court
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.").
considering whether a complaint states a claim for which
relief may be granted, a court must assume the truth of all
well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Herndndez 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).
a pro se plaintiffs complaint is subject to
"less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972), this is "not to say that pro se plaintiffs
are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a
claim[, ]" Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890
(1st Cir. 1980). To allege a civil action in federal court,
it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to allege that a
defendant acted unlawfully; a plaintiff must affirmatively
allege facts that identify the manner in which the defendant
subjected the plaintiff to a harm for which the law affords a
remedy. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
As noted, the statute that provides for waiver of the filing
fee also requires the court to determine whether the
plaintiff s case may proceed. In other words, the plaintiffs
complaint must be dismissed if the court finds it to be
frivolous or malicious, seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). In this regard, a pro se plaintiffs
complaint must be read liberally. Donovan v. Maine,
276 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2002).
read, the plaintiffs complaint alleges a series of events
beginning on May 7, 2014, that include being assaulted by the
former chief of police of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and
later, by the town's former manager. Complaint
¶¶ 8, 11. The complaint also alleges that Wolfeboro
police officers conspired with the then-acting town manager
to effectuate the plaintiffs unlawful arrest and prosecution
and that the town itself defamed her by banning her from town
hall and the police station without due process and then
publicizing the costly nature of her legal pursuits against
the town in a local newspaper. Id. ¶¶
issue here, however, is not whether the allegations of the
complaint state a viable claim but, rather, the fact that
they reveal no jurisdictional nexus between any party to this
suit and Maine. The plaintiff sues the Town of Wolfeboro, New
Hampshire, identifies herself and all of the individual
defendants as New Hampshire residents, and describes all of
her causes of action as arising from incidents that occurred
in that state. See generally Complaint. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391, which "govern[s] the venue of all
civil actions brought in district courts of the United
States[, ]" 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1), a civil action
may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which ...