Garland v. New England

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
George C. Garland
v. Civil No. 17-cv-171-JD
New England
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
George C. Garland, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1). The matter is
before this court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(1).
Preliminary Review
In conducting a preliminary review of a complaint filed in
forma pauperis, this court may dismiss the case before
defendants appear, if the court determines that the complaint
fails to state a claim, or that the action is frivolous. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). To survive preliminary review,
the complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation omitted). Plaintiff’s pleadings are construed
liberally in light of plaintiff’s pro se status. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 5 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 3

2
Background
Plaintiff’s allegations are disjointed and conclusory, and
frequently fail to identify who he alleges is liable for the
harms claimed. The complaint alleges facts about a summer camp
where he alleges more than a thousand campers were sexually
assaulted, and the complaint describes plaintiff’s interactions
with Concord Police Department (“CPD”) officers, CPD Chief
Osgood, state court judges, health care providers at Concord
Hospital, and others. Plaintiff asserts that he, his relatives,
and/or others known to him have been the victim of violent
crimes, rape, murder, torture, and assaults.
Discussion
[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only
if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” a category
encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,”
and “delusional.” As those words suggest, 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, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989)).
The claims in the complaint appear to be factually
frivolous. Moreover, none of the allegations give rise to any
cause of action cognizable here. Accordingly, the complaint
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 5 Filed 10/16/17 Page 2 of 3

3
should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint should be
dismissed. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation
must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen day period may be
extended upon motion. Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
____________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
October 16, 2017
cc: George C. Garland, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 5 Filed 10/16/17 Page 3 of 3