United States District Court, D. Maine
URSULA ANTONINA MARTINEZ and MELINDA DANIELLA MARTINEZ, Plaintiffs
LITTLE CAESAR CAESAR, et al., Defendants
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge
action alleging war crimes and various forms of abuse against
a wide range of unrelated defendants, pro se
plaintiff sisters Ursula and Melinda Martinez seek in
forma pauperis status. I grant the plaintiffs'
request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis but
recommend that the court dismiss the action with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Application To Proceed in Forma Pauperis
forma pauperis status is available under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). In their nearly identical motions to
proceed in forma pauperis, the plaintiffs declare
under penalty of perjury that they have no income or assets,
except “Martinez maisons [sic] and land” for
which they have no “paperwork.” See ECF
Nos. 4-5. Ursula Martinez also notes that she has $40, 000 in
student loan debt. See ECF No. 4. These financial
circumstances entitle them to proceed in forma
pauperis, and their application is granted.
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
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-Hernández
v. Fortuño-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 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).
complaint or claim is frivolous when “it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). A complaint or claim is
“factually frivolous only if the facts are clearly
baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Id. at
32-33 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“As those words suggest, a finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether
or not there are judicially noticed facts available to
contradict them.” Id. at 33. “An in
forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however,
simply because the court finds the plaintiff's
allegations unlikely.” Id. See also Miller
v. Kennebec Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 94-1859,
1995 WL 281644, at *1 (1st Cir. May 12, 1995) (unpublished)
(setting forth Denton standard for dismissal of
frivolous in forma pauperis complaints).
thrust of the plaintiffs' Complaint for a Civil Case
(“Complaint”) (ECF No. 1) is that the plaintiffs
and various family members have been subjected to ongoing
abuses by both known and unknown individuals for more than 1,
000 years, with the defendants, among others, continuing to
perpetrate abuses on the plaintiffs and other family members.
The plaintiffs allege that:
Martinez was abducted “more than 1000 years ago”
and subjected to various abuses, including “having her
embryons [sic] and power stolen daily[, ]” being
suffocated with “clear plastic bags, ”
“helium, ” “carbon dioxide, ” and
“carbon monoxide[, ]” and having her daughters
“electrocuted and gang raped[.]” Complaint at
. These abuses against members of the Martinez family
continued. See id. at -. “[U]known
individuals stole nuclear bluid [sic]” from the