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
this action, Plaintiff Jon Robert Adams, an inmate at the
Maine Correctional Center, alleges Defendants failed to
protect him from harm by other prisoners. Plaintiff asserts
that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment. Plaintiff also seeks to recover under state law.
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
5), which application the Court granted. (ECF No. 6.) 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 Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Dudley,
Emerson, Fitzpatrick, and Landry.
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). “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
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),
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 by 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).
alleges that another prisoner assaulted him on March 31,
2015. (Complaint ¶ 31, ECF No. 1.) According to
Plaintiff, prior to the assault, he provided Defendants Penny
Bailey, Glean Brown, and Scott McCaffery, employees of the
Maine Department of Corrections,  with information regarding
threats other inmates posed to his safety, but said
defendants denied or ignored Plaintiff's requests for
protective custody. (Id. ¶¶ 5 - 10, 15 -
asserts that after the assault, he was again placed in
housing that exposed him to a significant risk of harm by
other prisoners. Subsequently, Plaintiff directed requests
for a protective custody cell assignment to Defendants Robert
Dudley, Joseph Fitzpatrick, and Scott Landry. (Id.
¶¶ 37, 47, 48, 51, 56, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67, 80.)
Plaintiff has not alleged that he experienced another
A. Plaintiff's ...