BERGMAN v. KENNEBEC COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES LEE BERGMAN, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:26-cv-00043-JAW
)
KENNEBEC COUNTY 	)
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, who is in custody at the Maine State Prison, filed a complaint against the
Kennebec County Correctional facility and a transport officer arising out of an incident
that allegedly occurred in November 2025. 	(Complaint, ECF No. 1.) 	In addition to his
complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees (ECF No.
6), which application the Court granted. (Order, ECF No. 9.) In accordance with the statute
that governs actions where a plaintiff proceeds without prepayment of fees, a preliminary
review of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	Additionally,
Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to screening “before docketing, if feasible or … as soon as
practicable 	after 	docketing,” 	because 	he 	is 	“a 	prisoner 	seek[ing] 	redress 	from 	a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 	28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a).
After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss the
complaint.
Case 1:26-cv-00043-JAW Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
F ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that while he was in custody at the Kennebec County Jail, he was
taken to “intake” and then transported to the Riverview Psychiatric Center, even though he
told jail personnel that he was not the person that was to be transported to the facility.
Plaintiff asserts that prior to transport, jail personnel did not take steps to determine whether
he was required to be transported. 	When he arrived at Riverview, he pleaded with
personnel that he was not supposed to be there, and after approximately 15-20 minutes, he
was returned to the jail with an apology. Plaintiff alleges that he felt very vulnerable as the
result of the experience.
STANDARD OF R EVIEW
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 the statute, 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” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 	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 defendants
the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” 	Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
In addition to the review contemplated by § 1915, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to
screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because Plaintiff currently is incarcerated
and seeks redress from governmental entities and officers. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
Case 1:26-cv-00043-JAW Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The § 1915A screening requires courts to “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim …; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be
granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the
benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640
F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). 	A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is subject to “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this is
“not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a
claim”, Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980). To allege a civil action in
federal court, it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to allege that a defendant acted
unlawfully; a plaintiff must affirmatively allege facts that identify the manner by which the
defendant subjected the plaintiff to a harm for which the law affords a remedy. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff does not cite a federal law or right that he contends was violated by the
defendants. 	To assert an actionable claim, a complaint must include 	“more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
Case 1:26-cv-00043-JAW Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
662, 678 (2009). “A self-represented plaintiff is not exempt from this framework, but the
court must construe his complaint ‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” 	Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-
00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even with a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff has
not alleged an actionable claim. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted.
C ONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support
a cause of action. After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§
1915 and 1915A, therefore, 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
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 27th day of April, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00043-JAW Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>