BURNHAM v. MORGAN et al, No. 1:2024cv00056 - Document 7 (D. Me. 2024)
Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 4/17/2024. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BURNHAM v. MORGAN et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DILLIAN BURNHAM, Plaintiff v. ANDREW MORGAN, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:24-cv-00056-LEW RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly resulting from an encounter with law enforcement officers in August 2023. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) The named defendants include law enforcement officers and the local district attorney’s office. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, which motion the Court granted. (Motion, ECF No. 5; Order, ECF No. 6.) In accordance with the statute governing actions filed without the prepayment of fees, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter, unless within the fourteen-day period for the filing of objections to this recommended decision, Plaintiff files an amended complaint that adequately addresses the deficiencies with his complaint. DISCUSSION 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal courts for Dockets.Justia.com individuals unable to pay the cost of bringing an action. When a party is proceeding without prepayment of fees, 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.” 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). When 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). “A self-represented plaintiff is not exempt from this framework, but the court must construe his complaint ‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). “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). Plaintiff claims that Defendant Morgan, an officer with the Farmington Police Department, conducted an unlawful search and unlawfully detained him on August 5, 2023. 2 (Attachment to Complaint, ECF No.1-1.) He further asserts that on August 7, 2023, Defendant Whitney, also a Farmington police officer, unlawfully arrested him, made claims with no supporting evidence, and committed an “intentional tort.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim. A complaint may not consist entirely of “conclusory allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard.” Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013). To assert an actionable claim, a complaint must include “more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A selfrepresented plaintiff is not exempt from this framework, but the court must construe his complaint ‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Because Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim, dismissal is warranted. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, unless within the fourteen-day period for the filing of objections to this recommended decision, Plaintiff files an amended complaint that adequately addresses the deficiencies with his complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter. NOTICE A party 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 3 court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order. /s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated this 3rd day of April, 2024. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
