United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge.
pro se and in forma pauperis, Warren and Gail Laifer have
filed a complaint (doc. nos. 1 and 3), which is before this
magistrate judge for preliminary review. See LR 4.3(d)(2).
For the reasons that follow, I am issuing an order granting
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to assert a
properly exhausted and timely claim based upon the reduction
of their Social Security benefits, however I also recommend
dismissal of all of their other claims.
reviewing a pro se complaint, I must construe it liberally.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
After reviewing a complaint filed by parties such as the
Laifers, who are not incarcerated and who are proceeding in
forma pauperis, I may
recommend to the court that the filing be dismissed because
the allegation of poverty is untrue, the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, or the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief[; or]
. . . grant the party leave to file an amended filing in
accordance with the magistrate judge's directives.
LR 4.3(d)(2)(A) & (B); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). To state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see
also Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d
32, 35 (1st Cir. 2017).
facts in this section are drawn from the Laifers'
complaint, which consists of documents 1 and 3. See Endorsed
Order, Nov. 7, 2017.
preliminary matter, the court notes that the Laifers'
complaint is convoluted and difficult to follow. That said,
they allege that they both are or have been eligible for, and
have received, Social Security benefits, food stamps, and
some form of housing assistance. At some point, their Social
Security and food stamp benefits were reduced. The reasons
for those reductions are hinted at, but not fully described,
in the complaint. According to plaintiffs:
We were defrauded by the Social Security Administration
[“SSA”] and all papers and answers they gave were
[lies] with criminal intent to defraud. The same applies to
D.H.H.S. food stamp program. All venues of handling this have
been attempted - we need to talk to a federal judge in
Compl. (doc. no. 3 at 2). As to the venues in which they have
pursued their claims, plaintiffs elaborate: “We
appeared at both Social Security and food stamps office[s],
[and] contacted Senator Shaheen's office staffers.”
Compl. (doc. no. 1 at 2).
regard to conduct by Shania Sanborn on which plaintiffs base
their claim(s) against her, they allege:
Shania Sanborn said prior to our deficit [presumably the
reduction in their . . . benefits], call the city, call the
state, call the federals, and steal take all of our benefits,
what a sick sociopath, pathological liar who should be
questioned about the sickening children episode. She
organized all the action. The amounts to be stole[n] and the
exact [number] of food stamps, social security were known,
stated by Shania's crews prior to Gail and I knowing.
Also she knew and told them about Renee Laifer's home
address and U.F.T. benefits, some type of gambling operation
was going ...