HERBERT v. CHCS et al
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 2/10/2025. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KRISTINA E. HERBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHCS, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:25-cv-00025-LEW
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and
costs, which motion the Court granted. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; Motion, ECF No. 2; Order,
ECF No. 4.) In accordance with the statute governing matters in which a plaintiff proceeds
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.
DISCUSSION
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
pursuant to the statute, 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).
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] 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.”)
A review of Plaintiff’s complaint fails to reveal facts that would support an
actionable claim. Plaintiff’s allegations can reasonably be viewed as the type that warrant
dismissal under the Supreme Court’s analysis in Denton. Accordingly, dismissal of
Plaintiff’s complaint is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
On April 25, 2022, in Herbert v. Meghar, 1:21-cv-00346-LEW, the Court informed
Plaintiff that filing restrictions “may be in the offing” if she were to commence further
“groundless litigation.” (Order at 1, ECF No. 7) (quoting Cok v. Family Court of Rhode
2
Island, 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir.1993)). On January 26, 2024, in Herbert v. Uniship
Banking, 1:23-cv-00418-LEW, the Court “cautioned [Plaintiff] that the filing of a third
groundless action in this Court will result in a filing restriction.” (Order at 1, ECF No. 7.)
Given the Court’s prior warnings and given that Plaintiff’s complaint is baseless, I
recommend the Court impose filing restrictions on Plaintiff.
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 27th day of January, 2025.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?