ROSADO v. TRUMP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NINA LOUISE ROSADO, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:26-cv-00510-JAW
)
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed a complaint and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees,
which application the Court granted. 	(Complaint, ECF No. 1; Application, ECF No. 2;
Order, ECF No. 3.) In accordance with the statute that governs matters in which a plaintiff
is proceeding without 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 allegations, 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 § 1915, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00510-JAW Document 5 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” 	Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
Plaintiff alleges that the named defendants and others have interfered with and failed
to enforce her rights. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides a court with “the unusual power to pierce
the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 	“[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). 	Plaintiff’s material allegations
against the named defendants and the circumstances Plaintiff cites in support of her claims
can reasonably be viewed as the type that warrant dismissal under the Supreme Court’s
analysis in Denton.
C ONCLUSION
Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
for the reasons explained above, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00510-JAW Document 5 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

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 8th day of October, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00510-JAW Document 5 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>