CROSSON v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MAINE
1:25-cv-00247
D. Me.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kimberly D. Crosson filed a federal complaint alleging constitutional and civil rights violations by multiple state, county, and local actors in Maine (and some in New Hampshire).
- Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying fees), prompting preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Crosson alleged she was abused, received inadequate help from law enforcement, had her residence declared uninhabitable, was denied general assistance, and received no satisfactory response to property disputes or harassment allegations.
- The complaint named numerous defendants, including state officials (Governor, Attorney General), state and local law enforcement, municipal officials, private citizens, and legal professionals.
- The magistrate judge found a lack of sufficient factual allegations connecting certain defendants directly to any actionable constitutional violation.
- Plaintiff had previously filed numerous similar complaints in federal court, most of which were dismissed for lack of prosecution or merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private individuals as state actors | Private citizens participated in alleged wrongdoing | Private citizens not state actors under §1983 | No §1983 claim against private individuals |
| State agency liability under §1983 | State agencies liable for rights violations | State agencies not "persons" under §1983 | Claims against state agencies dismissed |
| Vicarious liability of senior officials | Governor/AG liable for subordinates' actions | §1983 requires personal action, not vicarious | No claim against senior officials |
| Failure to investigate/protect | Law enforcement failure to stop/prevent rights abuses | No constitutional right to investigation | Such claims not actionable |
| Due process re: housing/assistance | Improper denial of housing/general assistance | No due process violation shown | Insufficient facts for due process claim |
| Immunity of judicial actors | Judicial employees liable for adverse rulings | Judicial immunity applies | Claims barred by absolute immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (discusses standards for dismissal under § 1915 for frivolous claims)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states/state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (individual liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (judicial officers have absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts)
- Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan Capestrano, 412 F.3d 1 (state action requirement under § 1983)