UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gilbert Maurice Goudreau

v. Civil No. 06-cv-403-SM

Col. George Nathaniel Washington

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the complaint (document no. 1) filed by

pro se plaintiff Gilbert Maurice Goudreau, who has sued Col.

George Nathaniel Washington. As Goudreau is proceeding both pro

se and in forma pauperis, the complaint is currently before me

for preliminary review. See United States District Court for the

District of New Hampshire Local Rules (“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B). For

the reasons stated below, I recommend that the complaint be

dismissed. See LR 4.3(d)(1)(B)(i). 

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when a plaintiff commences

an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge is

directed to conduct a preliminary review and, among other things:

report and recommend to the court that the filing 

be dismissed because the allegation of poverty is 

untrue, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

Case 1:06-cv-00403-SM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 5
2

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 

or it fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

LR 4.3(d)(1)(B)(i). In conducting the preliminary review, the

Court construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Ayala Serrano v.

Lebron Gonzales, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (following

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) to construe pro se

pleadings liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The policy

behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that

if they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit the

correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” Ahmed

v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

Ahmed v. Greenwood, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).

At this preliminary stage of review, all factual assertions

made by the plaintiff and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom

must be accepted as true. See Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3

(1st Cir. 1996) (stating the “failure to state a claim” standard

of review and explaining that all “well-pleaded factual

averments,” not bald assertions, must be accepted as true). This

review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration. See Eveland v. Dir. of C.I.A., 843

F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 1988).

Case 1:06-cv-00403-SM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 5
3

Background

On February October 27, 2006, Goudreau filed a complaint

alleging that on October 11, 1959, a Col. George Nathaniel

Washington accosted and raped him, and also attempted to commit

Goudreau to non-officer level military service, contrary to

military law. Goudreau further asserts that this assault

occurred while Goudreau was seeking to arrest the defendant, an

operative for the Nashua Police Department on a case of “arrest

of coin.” 

Discussion

Although pro se pleadings are read generously, if the claims

set forth are patently frivolous, a court may dismiss the

complaint. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)

(frivolous claims include “claims of infringement of a legal

interest which clearly does not exist” and “claims describing

fantastic or delusional scenarios”); see also Street v. Fair, 918

F.2d 269 (1st Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A judge reviewing

a complaint filed by an individual proceeding in forma pauperis

has “not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power

to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and

Case 1:06-cv-00403-SM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 5
4

dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 

Turning to the case at hand, even the most generous reading

of the complaint reveals that Goudreau’s allegations, to the

extent they make any coherent assertion, contravene the common

human experience to the point of being groundless, thereby

rendering his action clearly frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (finding of factual frivolousness or

baselessness is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational

or wholly incredible, but not if the allegations are just

unlikely). Here, plaintiff has alleged that he was an undercover

police operative engaged in an effort to “arrest the coin” when

he encountered the defendant who advised plaintiff not to “touch

a coin of his realm” and then subsequently forced plaintiff into

enlisted status military service for the purpose of raping him. 

I find that plaintiff’s assertions are fanciful and delusional

and “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible.” Id.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed herein, I find that Goudreau has

failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted and I

Case 1:06-cv-00403-SM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 5
5

recommend that the complaint be dismissed. See LR

4.3(d)(1)(B)(i). Any objections to this Report and

Recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days of receipt of

this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified

time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See

Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14

(1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6

(1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 31, 2007

cc: Gilbert Maurice Goudreau, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00403-SM Document 6 Filed 01/31/07 Page 5 of 5