Dustin Graham Gilbert v. John Does 1-4

• Court: District Court, D. Maine
• Decided: March 6, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DUSTIN GRAHAM GILBERT, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 2:26-cv-00108-JAW ) JOHN DOES 1-4, ) ) Defendants ) RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff has commenced this action against unknown defendants regarding the loss of his business property. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) In addition to his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee (ECF No. 3), which application the Court granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to the statute that governs matters 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 matter. 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 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.” 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 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). Here, Plaintiff expresses his belief that he “can initiate an investigation with this civil action.” (Attachment to Complaint at 2, ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff evidently seeks an investigation into the loss of a business. Although he alleges the “illegal seizure of

property” and “civil rights violations,” (Complaint at 4), he provides no facts that would support a claim. The pleading rules “demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-

2 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim, dismissal is warranted.

CONCLUSION A review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 reveals that Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim. 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 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 6th day of March, 2026.