ADAMS v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY JAIL, No. 1:2018cv00446 - Document 2 (D. Me. 2018)
Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint filed by JUSTAN ADAMS. Objections to R&R due by 11/23/2018. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ADAMS v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY JAIL Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JUSTAN ADAMS, Plaintiff v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY JAIL, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:18-cv-00446-NT RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Plaintiff, an inmate at the Penobscot County Jail, filed this action in which he evidently questions the circumstances resulting in his incarceration, and alleges his civil rights were violated. Because Plaintiff is “a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to screening “before docketing, if feasible or … as soon as practicable after docketing,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). After a review of Plaintiff’s filing, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter. DISCUSSION 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). When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted, Dockets.Justia.com courts must assume the truth of all well-pled 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). Although 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”). In his filing, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would support a claim against the jail. In fact, Plaintiff’s principal concern appears to be the events that occurred prior to his arrival at the jail.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim. 1 To the extent Plaintiff intended to assert a claim against a person or entity other than the jail, Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the person or entity, nor has he alleged any facts that would support a claim against any other person or entity. 2 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. 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 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 8th day of November, 2018. 3
]]>
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.
