Jones v. NH State Police Troop E et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Matthew Jones
v. 	Case No. 23-cv-53-LM
New Hampshire State Police, Troop E
New Hampshire State Police, Troop D
New Hampshire State Police, Troop F
New Hampton Police
Loudon Police Association
Mount Washington Park Employees
Gorham Police Department
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Matthew Jones, a Delaware resident
appearing in forma pauperis, has filed a complaint against
several New Hampshire state and local law enforcement and state
park agencies. 	(Doc. No. 1). 	Mr. Jones seeks $250,000,000 in
damages related to alleged assaults that have taken place over
the course of several decades. 	The complaint now before the
court for preliminary review pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Jones’s, that are filed in forma pauperis.
See LR 4.3(d). 	The magistrate judge may recommend to the
district judge that one or more claims be dismissed if, among
other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is
immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a
Case 1:23-cv-00053-LM Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 6

2
claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). 	In conducting its preliminary review,
the court construes pro se complaints liberally. 	See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). 	The complaint
must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). 	The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. 	See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff’s Allegations
The four-page, single-spaced factual narrative in Mr.
Jones’s complaint is disjointed and, at times, incoherent. He
alleges that he has been “murdered” multiple times beginning in
1986, having been removed from his mother’s body after her
murder. 	He also alleges that he has been forced into
prostitution since he was two years old and forced to drink
motor oil and bleach. 	During an unspecified time period, Mr.
Jones alleges that he was in the care of crack addicts who
brought him to New Hampshire, where he was raped and assaulted
by “state and local police” in Loudon, New Hampshire, as well as
Massachusetts and Connecticut. 	Mr. Jones seeks monetary damages
for “stem cells that would rejuvenate his body . . . restore
life expectancy, eliminate illnesses, and regrow parts of the
Case 1:23-cv-00053-LM Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 6

3
body that were lost to the traumas . . . .” 	Complaint (Doc. No.
1) at 13.
Discussion
At the outset, Mr. Jones’s complaint should be dismissed
because the allegations are frivolous. 	A complaint is frivolous
“if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category
encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic and
delusional.” 	Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-3
(1992)(citations and quotations omitted). 	“As those words
suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when
the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 33. 	The
allegations in Mr. Jones’s complaint fit comfortably within the
Court’s description in Denton.1
1The court notes that Mr. Jones has filed nearly identical
lawsuits in other jurisdictions. 	The Third Circuit has noted
Jones’ propensity to raise “myriad allegations of rape, murder,
and kidnapping by members of [a] town’s police department.” 	See
Jones v. Bridgeville Police Dep’t, 758 F. App’x 235, 235 (3d
Cir. 2019); see also Jones v. Maine State Police Dep’t Troop E,
No. 1:22-cv-200, 2022 WL 2604594, at *1 (D. Me. July 7, 2022);
Jones v. Portland Me. Police Dep’t, No. 2:22-cv-201, 2022 WL
2604596, at *1(D. Me. July 7, 2022) (alleging that law
enforcement officers of the Maine State Police and Portland
Maine Police Department “raped, molested, battered, conditioned,
and attempted to murder” him when he was a child. 	The District
of Maine dismissed the actions at § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening
because his allegations were “fantastic and delusional” and
because he failed to state a claim. 1 	These dismissals were
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Case 1:23-cv-00053-LM Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 3 of 6

4
Beyond the frivolous allegations, Mr. Jones’s complaint is
also legally deficient in several ways. 	First, he alleges that
the defendants violated a number of criminal laws. 	Private
plaintiffs have no standing, however, to pursue criminal charges
in civil cases. 	See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
(1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable
interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”).
Next, Mr. Jones claims that the municipal police department
defendants are liable, under a theory of respondeat superior,
for the actions of various individuals. 	But to bring a claim
against a municipal police department, a plaintiff must allege a
municipal custom or policy that caused his injury. 	Mr. Jones’s
complaint contains no such allegations. 	See Bd. Of Cnty.
Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997)
(holding that a plaintiff “seeking to impose liability on a
municipality” must “identify a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’
Circuit in a consolidated appeal. See Jones v. Portland Me.
Police Dep’t, No. 22-1638, 2023 WL 2119793 (1st Cir. Jan. 4,
2023).
Mr. Jones has been warned by the Third Circuit “that filing
further meritless appeals in frivolous cases may result in the
imposition of sanctions or filing injunctions.” Jones, 758 F.
App’x at 236. 	In the District of Maine, Plaintiff has been
warned that “he is at risk of having filing limitations imposed
on him because of his numerous prior unmeritorious federal
lawsuits.” See 	Jones, 2023 WL 2119793, at *1; see also Jones v.
Maine State Police Dep’t, No. 1:22-cv-200, 2022 WL 3106572, at
*1 (D. Me. Aug. 4, 2022) (warning that “[g]roundless and
inappropriate filings will not be tolerated”).
Case 1:23-cv-00053-LM Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 4 of 6

5
that caused” his injury”). In addition, Mr. Jones’s claim for
damages against the state entities – the police troops and state
park employes – are foreclosed by sovereign immunity. 	See
Fantini v. Salem State College, 557 F.3d 22, 33 (1st Cir. 2009)
(“It is well settled that neither a state agency nor a state
official acting in his official capacity may be sued for damages
in a section 1983 action.” (cleaned up).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a
plausible claim for relief. 	Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in
the objection(s) to this Report and Recommendation are subject
to review in the district court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v.
United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any
issues not preserved by such objection(s) are precluded on
appeal. See id. 	Failure to file any objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's
Order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
Mr. Jones is cautioned that additional frivolous filings
may result in filing limitations, including requiring him to
Case 1:23-cv-00053-LM Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 5 of 6

6
obtain advance approval from a District Judge before filing
another, similar case. 	See Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island,
985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 10, 2023
cc: 	Matthew Jones, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00053-LM Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 6 of 6