MCKINNEY v. LEWISTON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ANTONIO MCKINNEY, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:25-cv-00367-SDN
)
LEWISTON POLICE 	)
DEPARTMENT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges a police department and county jail violated his constitutional rights
and a state public records law. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) With his complaint, Plaintiff filed
an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, (Application, ECF No. 2), which
application the Court granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) 	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, I recommend the Court dismiss the
complaint.
LEGAL 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
Case 2:25-cv-00367-SDN Document 9 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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-pleaded 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). 	“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)). “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).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff encountered officers from the Lewiston Police Department on March 29,
2023, and on July 5, 2025. 	After the July 2025 incident, Plaintiff submitted separate
records requests to the Lewiston Police Department and the Androscoggin County Jail
pursuant to Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. § 400, et seq. As of the filing of
the complaint on July 15, 2025, Plaintiff had not received any response from Defendants.
Case 2:25-cv-00367-SDN Document 9 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ failure to provide the requested information is
in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing various complaints and lawsuits against them. Plaintiff
maintains that Defendants’ actions infringe upon his First Amendment rights.
DISCUSSION
To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff “must show that [the
plaintiff] engaged in protected activity, that defendants took an adverse action against [the
plaintiff] that would deter a [plaintiff] of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in
that conduct, and that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse
action.” Turner v. Wall, No. 18-1869, 2020 WL 5543935, at *1 (1st Cir. May 5, 2020).
Plaintiff asserts that he requested the records on July 7, 2025. 	Plaintiff evidently
contends that Defendants’ failure to respond to the records request by July 15, 2025, the
date of 	his 	complaint, constitutes 	the 	adverse action necessary 	to support 	a 	First
Amendment claim because the incidents about which he complained occurred before the
requests. 	Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts regarding the substance of any
complaints nor any facts from which a fact finder could reasonably infer that the failure to
provide the requested information within eight days of the request (i.e., the time between
the requests and the date of Plaintiff’s complaint) is causally related to any protected
activity in which Plaintiff engaged or that Defendants’ conduct would deter a person of
ordinary firmness from making such complaints. 	Plaintiff, therefore, has not alleged
sufficient facts to support a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts to establish a violation of his First
Amendment rights, Plaintiff has not alleged a federal claim. Plaintiff also asserts a claim
Case 2:25-cv-00367-SDN Document 9 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
based on alleged violations of Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, but given the early stage
of the proceeding, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state
law claims. See Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995)
(“As a general principle, the unfavorable disposition of a plaintiff’s federal claims at the
early stages of a suit, well before the commencement of trial, will trigger the dismissal
without prejudice of any supplemental state-law claims”). 	Accordingly, dismissal of the
matter is warranted.
C ONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, I recommend the Court dismiss the complaint.
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 10th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-00367-SDN Document 9 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>