Crystal Raucci-Robert v. Lorenzo Marcano, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE CRYSTAL RAUCCI-ROBERT, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 2:26-cv-00058-JAW ) LORENZO MARCANO, et al., ) ) Defendants ) RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a violation of constitutional rights in connection with a court proceeding in Tennessee. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, which motion the Court granted. (Motion, ECF No. 3; Order, ECF No. 5.) 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, DISCUSSION 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal courts for 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 alleges a “deni[al] [of] constitutional rights” and a “denial of due process.” (Complaint at 2, 3.) Plaintiff asserts that Lorenzo Marcano was taken out of Maine due to a false allegation. (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.” — 2 — 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). Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would support an actionable claim against a named defendant. For instance, the complaint does not describe the conduct of any of the defendants. Even if Plaintiff had alleged more facts, dismissal would likely be appropriate. Plaintiff appears to complain about the results of a court proceeding in Tennessee. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine1 prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by ‘state-court losers’ challenging ‘state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.’” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). In general, “the proper forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling” is the state appellate system followed by a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court. Davison v. Gov’t of Puerto Rico-Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1257 . To the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to revisit the decision of a Tennessee state court, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes such a review. 1 See generally District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). — 3 — CONCLUSION As explained herein, Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim within this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , 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 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 17th day of February, 2026. — 4 —