Clark v. Rosenthal et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
LUCY CLARK
v. Civil No. 26-cv-332-LM-TSM
MICHAEL ROSENTHAL
KEVIN MCCLANAHAN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff, Lucy Clark, 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-00332-LM-TSM Document 3 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
DISCUSSION
In her sparse Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant Kevin Mcclanahan violated due
process,” and that “Defendant Michael Rosenthal conspired with Kevin Mcclanahan.” Doc. No.
1 at ¶¶ 1-2. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, “Plaintiff demands an award to be decided by the
Court.” Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff does not identify Defendants in any way beyond their names.
This is the totality of Plaintiff’s Complaint. These bare bones allegations do not satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; nor does the Complaint state any claim upon
which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (providing that a complaint must include “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 678 (a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007))).
Dismissal without leave to amend is warranted for the additional reason that this suit
appears to be malicious and an abuse of process. Plaintiff, who lists a return address in Jackson,
Wyoming, filed her Complaint in this court on Monday, April 27, 2026. See Doc. No. 1. That
same week, Plaintiff filed the same deficient Complaint in at least seven other jurisdictions
including the District of South Carolina (6:26-cv-01784), the Southern District of Florida (1:26-
cv-23040), the Eastern District of Washington (2:26-cv-00193), the Middle District of Tennessee
(3:26-cv-00549), the District of Nebraska (8:26-cv-00182), the Middle District of Georgia (5:26-
cv-00160), and the Western District of Wisconsin (3:26-cv-00390). Given Plaintiff’s filing history
and this lawsuit’s apparent lack of any connection to New Hampshire, Plaintiff’s repetitious filings
are an abuse of judicial process, rather than legitimate claims against Defendants. Daker v. Ward,
999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[A] plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse of the
Case 1:26-cv-00332-LM-TSM Document 3 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
judicial process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.); accord
McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995
(5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Crisafi v. Holland, 655
F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Therefore, dismissal without leave to amend is warranted.
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. 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
May 4, 2026
cc: Lucy Clark, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00332-LM-TSM Document 3 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 3