Even so, “dismissal of a pro se complaint is appropriate where a plaintiff merely states the formal elements of a claim ‘without the requisite supporting facts.'” Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183409, at *5 (D. Me. Oct. 23, 2019) (quoting Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997)). In other words, while pro se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard, they are nevertheless “required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim.”
Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008); see Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (a court should liberally construe a pro se filer's pleadings); Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183409, at *4-5 (D. Me. Oct. 23 2019) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, . . . and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). On January 19, 2023, this case was randomly assigned to this Judge upon Judge Hornby's retirement.
and endeavor, within reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims due to technical defects.” Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008); see Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (a court should liberally construe a pro se filer's pleadings); Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183409, at *4-5 (D. Me. Oct. 23 2019) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, . . . and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotations and citation omitted)).
. See Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (a court should liberally construe a pro se filer's pleadings); Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183409, at *4-5 (D. Me. Oct. 23 2019) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, . . . and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
Although Mr. Drewry titles each of his submissions to the Court as “Motion to Show Cause and Incur Filing Fee” and writes “in response to ECF [18] Order to Show Cause,” the Court recharacterizes Mr. Drewry's submissions as objections to the Magistrate Judge's August 3, 2022, Recommended Decision.SeeAyala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (a court should liberally construe a pro se filer's pleadings); Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183409, at *4-5 (D. Me. Oct. 23 2019) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, . . . and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). Mr. Drewry's first and second submissions are identical in content, but his second includes an additional attached Certificate of Service.
“'Merely reciting elements of a claim will not do …. Nor will alleging facts that are too meager, vague, or conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from the realm of conjecture.'” Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, Docket No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 WL 5431315, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 23, 2019) (quoting Lydon v. Local 103, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 770 F.3d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). The Supreme Court has said that a court should not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.”
To clarify, after a review of the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and when viewing the facts in the amended complaint as true and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, see McKee, 874 F.3d at 59, I determined that Plaintiffs have alleged a claim that Defendants unlawfully deprived them of their home under the color of state law and without due process.See Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, No. 2:19-cv-00229-NT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183409, at *5 (D. Me. Oct. 23, 2019) ("If a pro se plaintiff provides sufficient facts, a court can intuit the correct cause of action." (internal quotation marks omitted)).