Sorenson v. McPherson

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 5, 2007
• Docket: CUMcv-06-589
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV06-589 Q~ ) rt](.' \..... .__ r /i'j-" (., ..,j <:.'" .,'./

I JACQUELINE SORENSON

Plaintiff ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS v.

PETER MCPHERSON, et al.

Defendants

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss per

M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement per M.R. Civ.

P.12(e).

BACKGROUND

In October 2006, Plaintiff Jacqueline Sorenson ("Sorenson") filed a

complaint against Peter McPherson ("McPherson") and the Portland Help Center

("PHC"), an outpatient clinic assisting clients suffering from mental illness.

McPherson is, upon information and belief, the president of Spurwink

Corporation, which acquired PHC several years ago. Sorenson has been a client

of PHC's in the past. Sorenson's complaint and amended complaint allege that

she has experienced various forms of harassment, including alleged break-ins to

and thefts from her trailer. Sorenson alleges that these events date back to the

1980s. She does not allege that McPherson himself has committed these actions,

which, she alleges, violate her Fourth Amendment rights; rather, she claims that

1 McPherson has violated her First Amendment rights by not helping her speak

out about the problem through medical providers in order to pursue a remedy.

In the past, Sorenson apparently treated with Dr. David Labozzo, a

psychiatrist at PHC. Dr. Labozzo sent a letter to then-Governor Angus King on

Sorenson's behalf to alert him to the alleged problems with trespassing and

burglary that she stated she was experiencing. Sorenson now alleges that

McPherson no longer permits Dr. Labozzo help her seek redress for these claims

in violation of her constitutional rights, and Dr. Labozzo's First Amendment

rights. 1 In response, McPherson and PHC moved to dismiss the complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Alternatively, they

move for a more definite statement of the claim. They contend that it is not

apparent from the complaint how Sorenson's alleged difficulties with trespassers

entitle her to legal redress from any of the defendants. Sorenson asks this Court

not to dismiss her claim, or to allow her time to find an attorney to represent her.

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review.

A motion to dismiss "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Livonia

v. Town ofRome, 1998 ME 39, <]I 5, 707 A.2d 83, 85. Because the Court reviews the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to ascertain whether it

properly sets forth elements of a cause of action, "the material allegations of the

complaint must be taken as admitted." Id. <]I 5, 707 A.2d at 85. The Court should

dismiss a claim only "when it appears 'beyond doubt that [the] plaintiff is

entitled to no relief under any set of facts that [it] might prove in support of [its]

1 Sorenson lacks standing to assert a claim that Dr. Labozzo's constitutional rights have been violated.

2 claim."' McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994) (quoting Hall v. Bd. of Envtl.

Pratec., 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985)). As an alternative to outright dismissal, a

defendant may delay filing a responsive pleading by moving for a more definite

statement of the claim when the original statement is "so vague or ambiguous

that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading."

M.R. Civ. P. 12(e).

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Here, Defendants note that the allegations Sorenson raises are general

allegations of theft, and trespassing spanning a number of years. They argue that

the nature of the specific claim against them is unclear from the wording of the

complaint. Reading the amended complaint, it reasonably may be inferred that

Sorenson alleges that McPherson has violated her constitutional rights by

preventing her former psychiatrist from helping her obtain relief for the alleged

difficulties she has been having. Even viewing these allegations in the light most

favorabl y to Sorenson, assuming McPherson has ordered his staff psychiatrists

not to assist Sorenson with these claims, such actions do not rise to the level of a

cognizable constitutional violation. The complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby granted; however, the complaint

is dismissed without prejudice so that it may be re-filed if Sorenson is able to

obtain counsel who can draft a complaint upon which relief could be granted.

The entry is:

Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice. Sorenson may re-file her complaint if she obtains counsel to assist her.

3 The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

DATE: ~:J ", zoo'2

4 ~F COURTS and County 30x 287 ine 04112-0287

JACQUELINE SORENSON PO BOX 350 WESTBROOK ME 04092

F COURTS Ind County lox 287 ne 04112-0287

GRAYDON STEVENS ESQ PO BOX 597 PORTLAND ME 04112