CHUBIRKO v. UPPER CHICHESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
VASYL CHUBIRKO, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:26-cv-00122-JAW
)
UPPER CHICHESTER TOWNSHIP 	)
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, a Ukrainian asylum seeker, alleges that various police departments and
medical providers across several states failed to respond properly to his reports of criminal
activity, including stalking and other threatening behavior. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) With
his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees,
(Application, ECF No. 3), which application the Court granted. 	(Order, ECF No. 6.) 	In
accordance with the statute governing actions filed without the prepayment of fees, a
preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, for the reasons explained below, I
recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff 	was 	born 	in 	Ukraine 	and 	worked 	in 	the 	construction 	industry 	for
approximately twenty years. Plaintiff alleges that in 2020, he began receiving threats and
attempts were made on his life. 	Plaintiff moved to Florida in September 2023, to
Case 1:26-cv-00122-JAW Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Pennsylvania in January 2024, to Iowa in October 2024, and to Maine in December 2025.
Plaintiff believes that various unknown individuals across at least seven states in different
regions of the country have placed trackers on his vehicles, sabotaged his vehicles, broken
into and hidden surveillance equipment in his residences, damaged other property, and
poisoned him. Plaintiff contends that various law enforcement officers and medical
providers failed to respond appropriately to his reports.
Plaintiff did not identify the legal basis for his claims, but he seeks criminal charges,
a protection from abuse order, additional medical tests, and an order to a federal agency
(United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (hereinafter USCIS)) to approve an
immigration-related request that he filed previously.
L EGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 1915 is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal courts for
individuals unable to pay the cost of bringing an action. 	When a party is proceeding
without prepayment of fees, 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.” 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).
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
Case 1:26-cv-00122-JAW Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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). 	“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 Solutions, 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)).
“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).
DISCUSSION
Most of the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s filings involve individuals and conduct
in other states before he moved to Maine. 	Plaintiff’s filings, therefore, raise certain
jurisdictional concerns.
Plaintiff offers no explanation or argument to suggest this Court would have
jurisdiction over the out-of-state actors and the subject matter of any claims arising from
the out-of-state conduct, nor has he demonstrated that venue in the District of Maine would
be proper. For personal jurisdiction, the requirements of due process can be satisfied based
on voluntary consent or submission to the forum court's authority, based on physical
presence in the forum state, or based on the absent defendant's contacts with the forum.
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 610, 617–19
(1990) (discussing continued vitality of the historical presence and consent tests after the
advent of the modern doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of
Case 1:26-cv-00122-JAW Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Unemployment Compensation & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). “Where the defense of
improper venue is obvious from the face of the complaint and no further factual record is
required to be developed, the court may, sua sponte, dismiss the case.” 	Hart v. United
States Department of Treasury, No. 14-CV-421-LM, 2016 WL 825379, at *2 (D. N.H. Jan.
1, 2016) (citations and quotation marks omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
For the actors and alleged conduct in Maine after Plaintiff moved to Maine in
December 2025, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim. 	For instance, if Plaintiff
intended to assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on alleged violations of his federal rights,
the claims against the private medical providers fail because, as the plain language of §
1983 reflects, a claim for the deprivation of a constitutional right must be based on the
conduct of a state actor. 	Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan Capestrano, 412 F.3d
1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005).
Although Plaintiff named as defendants a Maine police officer and a police
department, which are state actors, the claims against them fail because there is no
constitutional right to governmental aid or protection against invasion by private actors.
See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195–96
(1989). Further, even if Plaintiff had named the individuals who allegedly committed the
underlying criminal acts against him, the Court lacks the power to bring criminal charges
or to order prosecutors to do so. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974).1
1 Plaintiff has also failed to cite any legal authority or facts that would support his request for this Court to
issue a protection from abuse order.
Case 1:26-cv-00122-JAW Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Finally, Plaintiff asks this Court to order USCIS to approve his employment
authorization request, but he has not alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.
Plaintiff has not provided enough information regarding his application and the related
process to demonstrate a potential basis for the Court to conclude that the alleged delay
would support an actionable claim. See Kinuthia v. Biden, No. CV 21-11684-NMG, 2022
WL 17653503, at *4 (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2022) (noting that Congress provided only
guidelines 	and 	“no 	legislative 	mandate 	that 	USCIS 	process 	applications 	to 	renew
[employment authorization documents] filed by non-citizens granted withholding of
removal within a particular timeframe” and delays of many months have been upheld under
the reasonable time requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act); A.Z. v. Nielson,
No. CV 18-10511-PBS, 2018 WL 5269990, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2018) (noting that
some kinds of delays are proper, including anything requested or caused by the applicant).
C ONCLUSION
After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, for the
reasons explained herein, I conclude that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support
an actionable claim within this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00122-JAW Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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 2nd day of April, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00122-JAW Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>