Simons v. Basu et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
NICOLE SIMONS
v. Civil No. 26-cv-296-SE-TSM
SHANTONU BASU, LOGAN SCHIFF
ENEDINA PILAR SANCHEZ,
KEVIN MCCLANAHAN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff, Nicole Simons, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) in this court. The Complaint is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW STANDARD
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2), the court
construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
The court may dismiss claims if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant is immune
from the relief sought, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief might be granted, or
the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). To determine if a
pleading states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court takes as true the facts asserted
in the Complaint, and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, strips away the legal
conclusions, and considers whether the complaint states a claim that is plausible on its face.
Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Case 1:26-cv-00296-SE-TSM Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
DISCUSSION
The same named Plaintiff filed the same Complaint against the same Defendants asserting
the same (scant) facts and legal conclusions in more than twenty federal district courts as of the
date of this Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff put a Mississippi return address on pleadings in an envelope that bears a different
postmark. Plaintiff contends that the named Defendants, who are not identified in any way beyond
their names, “violated constitutional rights.”
Confronting a similarly vacuous Complaint, the court in the District of Rhode Island
dismissed the matter without leave to amend:
While the Court would ordinarily extend an opportunity to amend, in this case it
does not: there are too many defects and it is evident to the Court that this is a
“ghost” complaint, not brought by a real person who suffered a real injury as a
result of a real violation of federal or any other law.
Mar. 13, 2026 Text Order, Collins v. Fang, No. 1:26-cv-00152-MRD-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2026)
(citations omitted).
The Complaint here warrants the same disposition. The facts stripped of legal conclusions
are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, or to state any claim upon which
relief can be granted. The suit appears to be malicious and an abuse of process. Accordingly, the
district judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, and then the Clerk’s Office should close
the case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety,
and then the Clerk’s Office should enter judgment and close the case. Any objections to this
Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
Case 1:26-cv-00296-SE-TSM Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised
in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842
F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
_________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
April 27, 2026
cc: Nicole Simons, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00296-SE-TSM Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3