United States District Court, D. Maine
HERBERT M. ADAMS, IV, Plaintiff
AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF'S
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Aroostook County Jail,
seeks to recover damages allegedly resulting from his
treatment while detained in the jail. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.)
Defendants consist of Aroostook County and various medical
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
2), which application the Court granted. (ECF No. 7.) 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).
review of Plaintiff's complaint in accordance with 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommend the Court
dismiss the matter.
party is proceeding in forma pauperis, “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 …; 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
(2007). “The relevant question ... in assessing
plausibility is not whether the complaint makes any
particular factual allegations but, rather, whether
‘the complaint warrant[s] dismissal because it failed
in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to relief
plausible.'” Rodríguez-Reyes v.
Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n. 14).
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),
the complaint may not consist entirely of “conclusory
allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard,
” Young v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224,
231 (1st Cir. 2013). See also Ferranti v. Moran, 618
F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980) (explaining that the liberal
standard applied to the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs
“is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required
to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim”).
alleges that as the result of Defendants' conduct, he
experienced “cruel & unusual punishment - Eighth
Amendment, unquestioned and serious deprivation of basic
human needs, minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities, medical care & safety, wanton and
unnecessary infliction of pain, serious psychological pain,
deliberate indifference, mere negligence, lack of due care,
mental anguish, [and] psychological injury.” (Complaint
complaint consists of conclusory statements unsupported by
any facts. “Though … pro se complaints are to be
read generously, allegations of conspiracy must nevertheless
be supported by material facts, not merely conclusory
statements.” Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d
163, 165 (1st Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). Additionally,
the pleading rules “demand more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Id.
has not alleged any facts that suggest a plausible claim
against any of the defendants. Plaintiff's Complaint,
therefore, cannot reasonably be construed to assert a
non-frivolous claim ...