United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff in this action, Christopher Love, has filed a
complaint against the Royal Fleet Auxiliary
(“RFA”). See Testimonial of the
Sponsored Reservist Legislation martyr (“2019
Complaint”) (ECF No. 1) at . I conclude that Mr.
Love may proceed in forma pauperis but recommend
that the court dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as barred by the principles of
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
forma pauperis status is available under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Mr. Love has not filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis; however, he is appearing pro
se, and the docket does not indicate that he has paid
the requisite filing fee. In 2010, Magistrate Judge Kravchuk
granted a motion by Mr. Love to proceed in forma
pauperis in a substantively identical lawsuit.
See Decision Granting Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis and Recommending Dismissal of Complaint
(“2010 Recommended Decision”) (ECF No. 4),
Love v. Royal Fleet Auxiliary (“Love
I”), No. 2:10-cv-00091-DBH (D. Me. Mar. 5, 2010)
(rec. dec., aff'd Mar. 18, 2010), at 1. My
review of the 2019 Complaint indicates that Mr. Love's
circumstances do not appear to have improved. See
generally 2019 Complaint. Therefore, I conclude that Mr.
Love may proceed in forma pauperis.
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. U.S. 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 provision.”).
September 30, 2019, Mr. Love filed a series of documents that
the Clerk's Office docketed as a complaint with
attachments. See 2019 Complaint & Attachments
thereto. The documents focus largely on Mr. Love's many
grievances with the RFA and its treatment of seafarers, in
particular, Sponsored Reservists. See id.
not Mr. Love's first time filing a lawsuit in this court.
On March 4, 2010, he filed a one-page complaint against the
RFA, the Ministry of Defence, and the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain alleging violations of his
rights under international seafarer's law and the Geneva
Convention. Complaint (“2010 Complaint”) (ECF No.
1), Love I. On March 5, 2010, Magistrate Judge
Kravchuk recommended the dismissal of the 2010 Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See
2010 Recommended Decision at 1-2. Mr. Love then filed a
document titled “Testimonial of the Sponsored Reservist
Legislation martyr” that he labeled a
“Pleading/Response to Judge Kravchuk's Order”
(and the Clerk's Office docketed as an “Objection
to Report and Recommended Decision”). Objection to
Report and Recommended Decision (“2010
Objection”) (ECF No. 7), Love I.
Mr. Love's objection, Judge Hornby adopted Magistrate
Judge Kravchuk's recommended decision on March 18, 2010,
see Order Adopting Report and Recommended Decision
(“2010 Order”) (ECF No. 8), Love I, and
the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiff, see ECF No. 9, Love
I. On April 21, 2010, Mr. Love appealed that judgment to
the First Circuit, see ECF No. 10, Love I,
which entered a judgment on May 24, 2010, dismissing the
appeal as untimely, see Judgment (“First
Circuit Judgment”), Love I, No. 10-1511 (1st
Cir. May 24, 2010).
first eight pages and most of the ninth page of the 2019
Complaint, including its “Addendum: The Law of
Unexpected/Unintended Consequences” and “SR
Martyr Dream Sheet, ” are identical to the 2010
Objection. Compare 2019 Complaint at -
with 2010 Objection. The remaining 28-plus pages
appear to be a diary of Mr. Love's thoughts, experiences,
and legal theories from April 9, 2010, through March 16,
2012. See 2019 Complaint at -. While the
Clerk's Office docketed the diary as a portion of the
complaint, it is best characterized as an attachment to the
eight-plus page document that precedes it. Mr. Love also
appends to his complaint a handwritten document requesting
“a full jury, ” “a military commission[,
]” and “interim funding to take this to the
Supreme Court, so [he] can file a class action
lawsuit.” Cover Letter/Picture (“Cover
Letter”) (ECF No. 1-4), attached to 2019 Complaint, at