UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

STEVEN J. HUARD :

:

v. : C.A. No. 08-120S

:

ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL :

CENTER, ET. AL. :

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge

On March 31, 2008, Plaintiff, Steven J. Huard, initiated this lawsuit by filing a

Complaint. (Document No. 1). On May 6, 2008, Plaintiff’s First Amended Verified Complaint

was filed (Document No. 3) which was accompanied by a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) without being required to prepay costs or fees, including the $350.00 civil case filing fee.

(Document No. 4). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, Magistrate Judge

Muirhead concluded that Plaintiff was unable to pay fees and costs in this matter and thus,

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP (Document No. 4) was GRANTED on May 20, 2008. On

June 25, 2008, after recusal of all Judges in the District of New Hampshire, the case was referred

to this Court and assigned to District Judge Smith. 

Judge Smith referred this matter to me for screening following the grant of IFP status.

Pursuant to Local Rule 4.3(d)(2)(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) this Court must review the

claims set forth in the Complaint and dismiss this suit if it is “frivolous or malicious,” or “fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 

Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 27 Filed 11/19/08 Page 1 of 4
-2-

Facts

Plaintiff was arrested and taken into federal custody in June 2006 to face charges of bank

robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of

violence. See United States v. Huard, C.A. No. 06-117. Plaintiff was initially detained at the

Essex County Correctional Facility in Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that he had several prior

healthcare concerns, including, “an ace tabular fracture on his right hip, liver disease,

neuropathy, spinal injuries, sciatica nerve damages, pain management concerns and other chronic

care needs.” Am. Compl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff claims that his medical needs were not adequately met by Correctional Medical

Services, the vendor which provides medical services to inmates at the Essex County Facility.

Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants to restructure

and reimplement policies and procedure concerning the provision of healthcare to federal

prisoners, and he seeks nominal, compensatory and punitive damages and costs in excess of $10

million. Id. ¶¶ 35-48. Plaintiff submitted voluminous exhibits which he contends support his

claim that he received constitutionally inadequate medical care. 

Standard of Review

Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a federal court to dismiss an action brought thereunder

if the court determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The standard for dismissal of an action taken IFP is identical to the

standard for dismissal on a motion to dismiss brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See

Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). In other words, the court

Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 27 Filed 11/19/08 Page 2 of 4
-3-

“should not grant the motion unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be unable

to recover under any set of facts.” Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, 96 F.3d 566, 569 (1st Cir. 1996).

Section 1915 also requires dismissal if the court is satisfied that the action is “frivolous.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law

or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “Where the court has no subject

matter jurisdiction there is ‘no rational argument in law or fact’ to support the claim for relief

and the case must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).” Mack v.

Massachusetts, 204 F. Supp. 2d 163, 166 (D. Mass. 2002) (quoting Mobley v. Ryan, 2000 WL

1898856, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2000)) (citations omitted). 

Discussion

This Court has taken all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint as true and drawn all

reasonable inferences in his favor. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). In addition, this

Court has liberally reviewed the Plaintiff’s allegations and legal claims since they have been put

forth by a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Having

reviewed the Complaint and relevant case law, this Court finds that Plaintiff has technically

stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff has

adequately plead a claim under Section 1983, the Amended Complaint can proceed past this

initial screening phase. The Court offers no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff’s case, since the

merits of his claim are not presently before the Court.

Because Plaintiff has been granted IFP status, the Court ORDERS that the U.S. Marshal

for this District serve Defendants with a copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended Verified Complaint

Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 27 Filed 11/19/08 Page 3 of 4
-4-

and this Order. Defendants shall have twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of this Order and

the accompanying documents to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s First

Amended Verified Complaint. 

 /s/ Lincoln D. Almond 

LINCOLN D. ALMOND

United States Magistrate Judge

November 19, 2008

Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 27 Filed 11/19/08 Page 4 of 4