TORRE v. LEIGHTON

• Court: District Court, D. Maine
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00132
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

VINCENT TORRE JR., ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00132-NT ) JESSICA LEIGHTON, ) ) Defendant )

RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL

In his pro se complaint, Vincent Torre Jr. brings claims of defamation, slander, and violation of his constitutional rights against Jessica Leighton. See Complaint (ECF No. 1). Torre did not pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Rather than ordering Torre to pay the filing fee or file an IFP application, I recommend the Court exercise its inherent authority and DISMISS his complaint. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989). Torre’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Leighton fails because he does not allege—nor does it appear he could allege—that she was acting under color of state law. See Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan Capestrano, 412 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005) (“If the plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to establish either the deprivation of a federal right or that the defendant . . . acted under color of state law, then the § 1983 claims is subject to dismissal.”). And without a valid federal claim to serve as a jurisdictional hook, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Torre’s state law defamation and slander claims because he and Leighton are both citizens of Maine. See Complaint ¶¶ 1-2; BRT Mgmt. LLC v. Malden Storage LLC, 68 F.4th 691, 695 (1st Cir. 2023) (“Under [28 U.S.C. § 1332], . . . diversity must be complete; that is, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state

as any defendant.”). Finally, this is the fourth groundless complaint Torre has filed in the past week or so. See Docket Nos. 2:25-cv-00118-NT, 2:25-cv-00127-NT, 2:25-cv-00128-NT. Because meritless pleadings waste limited judicial resources, I recommend that the Court WARN Torre that filing restrictions may be in the offing if he continues to file groundless complaints. See Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir. 1993)

(noting that courts may impose filing restrictions on abusive litigants after adequate notice). 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: April 8, 2025

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge