FLEEMAN v. POTTS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
TIFFANY DAWN FLEEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MRS. POTTS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:26-cv-00083-SDN
ORDER
In this matter, Plaintiff Tiffany Dawn Fleeman has sued “Mrs. Potts” and other
unnamed staff members at the HSC Homeless Center in Portland, Maine, for a wide range
of conduct, including “illegally forcing people to hear [her] think in public,” “starting a
racist organization up about” her, attempting to murder her, and holding her family
members hostage. ECF No. 1 at 4. In her complaint, Ms. Fleeman does not sufficiently
allege either a federal question of law at issue in the case or the diversity of parties, so as
to 	establish 	federal 	jurisdiction. 	On 	February 	20, 	2026, 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge
recommended the Court dismiss Ms. Fleeman’s as factually frivolous. ECF No. 7; see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . .”).
On March 2, 2026, Ms. Fleeman subsequently objected to the Recommended
Decision, but did not identify any specific errors in the Magistrate Judge’s legal reasoning
or conclusion. Instead, Ms. Fleeman provides additional nonsequitous and conclusory
assertions that Defendants have committed “heinous crimes” against her, including
“hostaging, human trafficking, giving information about me on a daily bas[i]s, [and]
putting an organization together to hate me.” ECF No. 8 at 1. Additionally, Ms. Fleeman
Case 2:26-cv-00083-SDN Document 9 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
continues to allege she is “still hostage” and will continue to be talked to by “the people
they brained with computer type devices to hear me think my thoughts.” Id. at 2.
I have reviewed and conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommended Decision and the entire record. I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and determine that no
further proceeding is necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and for those already explained in the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommended Decision, Ms. Fleeman’s objection, ECF No. 8, is OVERRULED.
The Recommended Decision, ECF No. 7, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, Ms. Fleeman’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 31st day of March, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00083-SDN Document 9 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>