Tiffany Dawn Fleeman v. Mrs. Potts et al.

D. Maine

Tiffany Dawn Fleeman v. Mrs. Potts et al.

DecidedFebruary 20, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-00083

StatusUnknown

This text of Tiffany Dawn Fleeman v. Mrs. Potts et al. (Tiffany Dawn Fleeman v. Mrs. Potts et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tiffany Dawn Fleeman v. Mrs. Potts et al., (D. Me. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

TIFFANY DAWN FLEEMAN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00083-SDN ) MRS. POTTS et al., ) ) Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW

Because I granted Tiffany Dawn Fleeman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 6, her complaint (ECF No. 1) is before me for preliminary review, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In her pro se complaint, Fleeman accuses a “Mrs. Potts” and other staff at the HSC Homeless Shelter in Portland of “illegally forcing people to hear [her] think in public,” exposing her to “bad people and situations,” causing her “[b]rain damage” and implanting “a computer type device” into her head, “starting a racist organization up about” her, attempting to murder her, and holding her family members hostage. Complaint at 4. Given the obvious frivolity of Fleeman’s irrational allegations, I recommend that the Court DISMISS her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . .”); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (holding that a case is factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”). 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: February 20, 2026

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

TIFFANY DAWN FLEEMAN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00083-SDN ) MRS. POTTS et al., ) ) Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW

Because I granted Tiffany Dawn Fleeman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 6, her complaint (ECF No. 1) is before me for preliminary review, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In her pro se complaint, Fleeman accuses a “Mrs. Potts” and other staff at the HSC Homeless Shelter in Portland of “illegally forcing people to hear [her] think in public,” exposing her to “bad people and situations,” causing her “[b]rain damage” and implanting “a computer type device” into her head, “starting a racist organization up about” her, attempting to murder her, and holding her family members hostage. Complaint at 4. Given the obvious frivolity of Fleeman’s irrational allegations, I recommend that the Court DISMISS her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . .”); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (holding that a case is factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”). 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: February 20, 2026

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tiffany Dawn Fleeman v. Mrs. Potts et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-dawn-fleeman-v-mrs-potts-et-al-med-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack