TORRE v. DIAZ

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
VINCENT TORRE JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00626-LEW
)
CARLOS DIAZ, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL
Proceeding 	pro 	se, 	Vincent 	Torre 	Jr. 	brings 	civil 	rights 	claims 	against
Cumberland 	County 	Assistant 	District 	Attorney 	Carlos 	Diaz. 	See 	Complaint
(ECF No. 1). 	The Court previously denied without prejudice Torre’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), noting that he had failed to provide his inmate trust
account statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See ECF No. 4. The Court
warned Torre that, even if he filed his trust account statement, his case would “in all
likelihood be screened and dismissed . . . because he is a prisoner seeking redress
from a government officer who has absolute prosecutorial immunity.” Id.
Thereafter, 	Torre 	sought 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	to 	file 	his 	trust 	account
statement, which the Court granted and extended the deadline to January 30, 2026.
See ECF No. 5. On January 23, 2026, Torre filed documents indicating that, although
he has requested his trust account statement from the jail where he is incarcerated,
he has yet to receive it. See ECF No. 7.
Case 2:25-cv-00626-LEW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Rather than waste further judicial time on the issue of Torre’s trust account
statement or whether he qualifies for IFP status, I recommend that the Court exercise
its inherent power and DISMISS his frivolous complaint. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist.
Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“[28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)] . . . authorizes courts to dismiss
a ‘frivolous or malicious’ action, but there is little doubt that they would have power
to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”). 	Diaz is immune from
liability under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, and this Court lacks authority
to enjoin or otherwise interfere with Torre’s state court criminal case, as he requests.
See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are
absolutely immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); In re Justices of the
Superior Ct. Dep’t of the Mass. Trial Cts., 218 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that
the Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from interfering with
ongoing state court proceedings “even where defendants claim violations of important
federal rights”).
Torre is already subject to filing restrictions and has been warned previously.
See 	Torre 	v. 	Me. 	Dep’t 	of 	Health 	& 	Hum. 	Servs., 	No. 	2:25-cv-00429-LEW,
2025 WL 2986343, at *11 (D. Me. Oct. 23, 2025) (dismissing claims by Torre against
Diaz and enjoining him from filing, among other things, “official capacity claims that
seek relief designed to overturn or nullify state court criminal and parental rights
proceedings and rulings” (emphasis omitted)), appeal docketed, No. 26-1012 (1st Cir.
Jan. 7, 2026); Torre v. Leighton, No. 2:25-cv-00132-NT, 2025 WL 1286011, at *1
(D. Me. May 2, 2025) (dismissing Torre’s complaint and, in light of his recent filing of
Case 2:25-cv-00626-LEW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
three other groundless complaints, putting him on notice “that filing restrictions may
be in the offing” (cleaned up)). 	I recommend that the Court broaden these filing
restrictions and further ENJOIN Torre from filing new complaints in the District of
Maine without first obtaining the Court’s permission by showing that he is not
seeking damages from an immune person or entity or improperly seeking to interfere
with a state court case.
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 after being served with a copy thereof. 	A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
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.
Dated: January 27, 2026
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00626-LEW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>