United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
pleading signed by an unidentified individual, Plaintiff
apparently attempts to assert an action against members of
the federal government and the federal judiciary. Upon review
of the Plaintiff’s submissions, dismissal, without
further proceedings, is warranted. Accordingly, I recommend
the Court dismiss the matter.
has not paid the filing fee, nor has Plaintiff applied for
and been granted in forma pauperis status. “A district
court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the reasons
prescribed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).” Cintron-Lorenzo
v. Dep’t de Asumtos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522,
526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) authorizes a court to dismiss an action for a
party’s failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to
satisfy a prerequisite to the filing of an action in this
Court (i.e., pay the filing fee or file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis) and thus Plaintiff has failed to
take the measures necessary to prosecute its claim. While in
many cases, the Court might permit a plaintiff the
opportunity to cure the deficiency before dismissing the
matter, even if Plaintiff paid the filing fee or obtained
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff could not
Plaintiff does not appear to be a legal entity that can
commence an action. “The capacity of [an organization]
to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law under which
it was organized. In all other cases capacity to sue or be
sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the
district court is held.” Van Dusen v. Barrack,
376 U.S. 612, 615 n.1 (1964). Plaintiff makes no claim that
it is registered as a legal entity in any state. As such, its
capacity to sue is determined by the law of this district.
“In Maine, an unincorporated association generally
‘does not have capacity to sue or be sued in its own
name, absent specific statutory authorization.’”
K & S Servs., Inc. v. The Schulz Elec. Group of
Cos., 670 F.Supp.2d 91, 93 (D. Me. 2009) (quoting
Tisdale v. Rawson, 822 A.2d 1136, 1140 (Me.
2003)). Plaintiff has alleged no facts to suggest
that it constitutes an organization authorized by Maine law
to be a party in litigation.
addition, Plaintiff’s filing does not appear to have
been signed by a member of the bar of this Court.
See District of Maine Local Rule 83.1(c)
(“[n]o person who is not a member in good standing of
the bar of this Court shall appear on behalf of another
person except [under circumstances not applicable to this
to the extent Plaintiff, which describes itself as a grand
jury, purports to assert a criminal action, Plaintiff has no
authority to initiate criminal proceedings. See Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private
citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in the
criminal prosecution of another); Cok v. Cosentino,
876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Generally, a private
citizen has no authority to initiate a federal criminal
prosecution.”); Briand v. Lavigne, 223
F.Supp.2d 241, 251 (D. Me. 2002) (citing Cok).
by failing to pay the filing fee or obtain leave of Court to
proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute
the matter. Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that it has
the authority to proceed in this matter.
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss the
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 copy thereof.
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and to ...