United States District Court, D. Maine
FRANKLIN J. SALCEDO, Plaintiff
WILLIAM KING, et al., Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF'S
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
action, Plaintiff alleges that when he was an inmate at the
York County Jail, he was injured during a prisoner transport.
With his complaint, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's privacy claim, but permit
Plaintiff to proceed on a claim of deliberate indifference.
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.” 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 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.” 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 when he and other inmates were transported in a
van, evidently because there were not enough seats in the van
for the number of the inmates, Defendants Dubois and Staples
had another inmate sit on Plaintiff's lap. (Complaint,
ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts he suffered an injury to his
neck and back, and that his right to privacy was violated.
Plaintiff asserts Defendants King, Ronco, and
Vitiello failed to train the transport officers
(Defendants Dubois and Staples) properly. (ECF No. 12.)
to the federal civil rights statute:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution