Ventura et al v. Vella-Marrone et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BEN VENTURA
v. Civil No. 26-cv-345-JL-AJ
FRAN VELLA-MARRONE,
BRIAN GOTLIEB, AND
GENINE EDWARDS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Ben Ventura, proceeding pro se without counsel, filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1)
in this court. The Complaint is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW STANDARD
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2), the
court construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). The court may dismiss claims if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant
is immune from the relief sought, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief might be
granted, or the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). To
determine if a pleading states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court takes as true the
facts asserted in the Complaint, and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, strips away
the legal conclusions, and considers whether the complaint states a claim that is plausible on its
face. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
DISCUSSION
The same named Plaintiff filed the same Complaint against the same Defendants
Case 1:26-cv-00345-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
asserting the same (scant) facts and legal conclusions in more than twenty federal district courts
as of the date of this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff contends that the named
Defendants, who are not identified in any way beyond their names, violated due process.
Confronting a similarly vacuous Complaint, the court in the District of Rhode Island
dismissed the matter without leave to amend:
While the Court would ordinarily extend an opportunity to amend, in this case it
does not: there are too many defects and it is evident to the Court that this is a
“ghost” complaint, not brought by a real person who suffered a real injury as a
result of a real violation of federal or any other law.
Mar. 13, 2026 Text Order, Collins v. Fang, No. 1:26-cv-00152-MRD-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13,
2026) (citations omitted).
The Complaint here warrants the same disposition. The facts stripped of legal
conclusions are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, or to state any
claim upon which relief can be granted. The suit appears to be malicious and an abuse of
process. Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, and then the
Clerk’s Office should close the case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety,
and then the Clerk’s Office should enter judgment and close the case. 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 objection period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues
raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842
F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00345-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
_________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 15, 2026
cc: Ben Ventura, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00345-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 3