United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
RECOMMENDED DECISION UPON SCREENING COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)
C. NIVISON, Magistrate Judge.
complaint, Plaintiff Mohammed Abdallah Omran, who is
currently detained in Louisiana in connection with
deportation proceedings, alleges that the Defendants, Judge
Joseph LaPlante, Assistant United States Attorney Michael
Gunnison, and members of the New Hampshire Attorney
Discipline Office, conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his
civil rights in connection with the federal criminal
proceeding filed against him in this Court. See United
States v. Abdallah, No. 1:12-cr-00117 (D.N.H.).
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 3), which request was
granted on May 3, 2016. (ECF No. 16.) Upon review of
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Â§ 1915(e), I recommend
the Court dismiss the case without service of process.
prior occasions, Plaintiff filed the same or similar actions
against Defendants. See Abdallah Omran v. Assistant
United States Attorney, No. 1:15-cv-00406 (D.N.H.) (ECF
No. 13); Abdallah Omran v. United States, No.
1:14-cv-00505 (D.N.H.) (ECF No. 14). In both prior actions,
the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, but, following the screening required under 28
U.S.C. Â§ 1915, dismissed the actions because Plaintiff failed
to state an actionable claim. With this latest filing,
Plaintiff attempts to reassert claims against Defendants that
the Court previously screened for failure to state a claim.
party is proceeding in forma pauperis, "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. Â§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Dismissals [under Â§ 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,
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).
"The relevant question... in assessing plausibility is
not whether the complaint makes any particular factual
allegations but, rather, whether the complaint warrant[s]
dismissal because it failed in toto to render
plaintiffs' entitlement to relief plausible.'"
RodrÃguez-Reyes v. Molina-RodrÃguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55
(1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n.
14). Although a pro se plaintiff's complaint is subject
to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers, " Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the complaint may not consist entirely
of "conclusory allegations that merely parrot the
relevant legal standard, " Young v. Wells
Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013). See
also Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st
Cir. 1980) (explaining that the liberal standard applied to
the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs "is not to say that
pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts
sufficient to state a claim").
review of Plaintiff's complaint reveals that he is
attempting to assert in this action the same claims he
asserted against Defendants in case number 1:14-cv-00505 and
in case number 1:15-cv-00406.  In contrast to his
earlier cases, in this action Plaintiff more specifically
alleges that Defendants LaPlante and AUSA Gunnison deprived
him of equal protection and due process of law because they
learned in the course of the criminal proceeding that
Plaintiff instructed his counsel not to file a motion to
dismiss on his behalf, and that Plaintiff's counsel
nevertheless filed the motion. According to Plaintiff,
Defendants LaPlante and Gunnison breached a duty to Plaintiff
to take action against Plaintiff's counsel, such as
reporting counsel to the Attorney Discipline Office.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants LaPlante and Gunnison failed to
take action because of Plaintiff's ethnicity and
nationality. (Complaint Â¶Â¶ 14-15.)
the Attorney Discipline Office Defendants, Plaintiff alleges
they failed to investigate his misconduct charge against his
counsel because of Plaintiff's ethnicity and national
origin. ( Id. Â¶ 16.) Plaintiff further asserts that
Defendants participated in a conspiracy to deprive him of his
rights to due process, effective assistance of counsel, and
also alleges that Defendants' failure to fulfill the
alleged duty was in the nature of an administrative act,
rather than a judicial or prosecutorial act. ( Id.
Â¶Â¶ 14-16.) Plaintiff's characterization of
Defendants' conduct as administrative apparently is an
attempt to avoid dismissal based on Defendants' immunity.
Plaintiff's bald assertion that Defendants' conduct
involved administrative acts is insufficient to establish a
factual basis for an exception to Defendants' immunity.
See, e.g., Schwartz v. Snohomish Cty., No.
2:05-cv-00732, 2006 WL 692024, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17,
2006). Plaintiff's claims, therefore, fail for the same
reasons his previous actions were dismissed. (Case
1:14-cv-00505, Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, ECF
No. 14, Report and Recommendation at 9-10, ECF No. 11; Case
1:15-cv-00406, Order Dismissing Case at 3-5, ECF No.
Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to avoid
dismissal based on Defendants' immunity, as explained
below, dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff has failed to
state an actionable claim.
Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of "life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S.
CONST. Amend. V. Although Plaintiff alleges he wanted
Defendants to take disciplinary action against his counsel,
his desire for disciplinary proceedings against his counsel
does not rise to the level of a liberty interest protected by
the Constitution. Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n,998 F.2d 1559, 1568-69 (10th Cir. 1993) ("Substantive
due process rights do not encompass a right to compel a state
to do something for someone not under some form of
custody or restraint.... [T]he same is true with respect to a
claim that the state ought to do something to
someone else.") (citations omitted) (emphasis in
original); Saier v. State Bar of Mich., 293 F.2d
756, 759 (6th Cir.) (explaining that failure to conduct
disciplinary proceeding against attorney does not deprive
client of ...