United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF'S
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
his amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for
constitutional violations he maintains occurred during and
following an illegal entry into his residence. Plaintiff
named more than ninety defendants, including the United
States government, the state of Maine, law enforcement
officers, government officials, private citizens and various
organizations. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8.)
also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 5), which application the Court granted. (ECF No. 7.) In
accordance with the in forma pauperis statute, a preliminary
review of Plaintiff's amended complaint is
appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Following a
review of the amended complaint, I recommend the Court
dismiss the matter.
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).
300-count amended complaint, Plaintiff has outlined a series
of events that allegedly began with his decision to lease a
residence in Owls Head (Knox County) in 2017. Plaintiff
describes his interactions with some of the named defendants
prior to and following a series of alleged illegal entries
into the residence during his absence and while he was
sleeping. Citing numerous federal and state statutes,
Plaintiff's complaint includes multiple “criminal
conspiracy” counts, several counts related to an
alleged attempted murder and assault, counts asserting the
unlawful disclosure of health information, and counts
alleging the creation and submission of false police reports
and the hacking of various electronic devices.
the statutes upon which Plaintiff relies to support his
claims are federal and state criminal statutes. A violation of a
federal criminal statute does not automatically give rise to
a federal question civil claim. Cf. Merrell Dow Pharm.
Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 817 (1986) (“We
conclude that a complaint alleging a violation of a federal
statute as an element of a state cause of action, when
Congress has determined that there should be no private,
federal cause of action for the violation, does not state a
claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331)); Dugar v. Coughlin, 613 F.Supp. 849,
852 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (noting that alleged violations of
federal criminal statutes will not serve “as a
predicate for a section 1983 claim”). The plain
language of the cited statutes does not authorize a private
cause of action. Plaintiff, therefore, has no federal civil
claim based on the alleged violation of a criminal statute.
Plaintiff's attempt to assert a civil conspiracy claim
under state or federal law, while Plaintiff has alleged
generally there was a conspiracy among the defendants,
“nothing in the [amended] complaint” besides
conclusory statements raises “a plausible suggestion of
conspiracy.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 566 (2007); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009).
a review of the entirety of Plaintiff's amended complaint
reveals that Plaintiff's allegations are otherwise not
actionable. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides a court with
“the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. “[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 noticeable facts
available to contradict them.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Golden v.
Coleman, 429 Fed. App'x 73, 74 (3rd Cir. 2011)
(dismissing complaint because the allegations were
“fantastic, delusional, and simply
unbelievable.”) Plaintiff's material factual
allegations against the named defendants and the
circumstances Plaintiff cites in support of his claims can
reasonably be viewed as the type that would warrant dismissal
under the Supreme Court's analysis in Denton.
See Flores v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No.
2:13-CV-00053-DBH, 2013 WL 1122719, at *2 (D. Me. Feb. 26,
2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:13-CV-53-DBH,
2013 WL 1122635 (D. Me. Mar. 18, 2013).
on the foregoing analysis, after a review in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915, I recommend the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint.
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 ...