Romero, Jr. v. Governor of the State of Alaska, 4:25-cv-00002

Five civil rights cases were filed by George Moises Romero, Jr., a self-represented plaintiff incarcerated in Alaska, raising overlapping claims involving law enforcement, parole officers, state and municipal entities, and prison conditions.
All complaints were screened together under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, which require rapid dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from immune defendants.
Romero alleged various constitutional and statutory violations in connection with arrests, criminal prosecutions, interference with business activities, parole revocation, and prison conditions.
The court analyzed whether Romero's complaints stated plausible claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, focusing on whether any of the defendants acted under color of state law and violated a federal right.
The court found most complaints deficient for failure to state a claim; some types of defendants (e.g., judges, prosecutors, the state itself) were found immune or not subject to suit under § 1983; a few claims (e.g., excessive force, deliberate fabrication of evidence, inadequate medical care) were allowed limited leave to amend if Romero could provide specific facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
State action and immunity under § 1983	Defendants acted under color of law and violated his rights	Many defendants (state, judges, prosecutors, private parties) are immune	Dismissed all such claims with prejudice
Constitutional right to pursue interstate commerce	He was prevented from engaging in business by defendants' actions	No recognized federal constitutional right to such commerce	No actionable claim under § 1983; dismissed with prejudice
Malicious prosecution and improper criminal process	Criminal prosecution lacked probable cause, motivated by malice	Actions within the proper exercise of judicial or prosecutorial functions	Dismissed; judicial/prosecutorial immunity or no viable constitutional claim
Excessive force and fabrication of evidence	Claimed use of excessive force and evidence fabrication in arrests	Not all facts alleged; defendants denied wrongdoing	Leave to amend given (if Romero can plead specific facts)
Prison conditions and medical care	Inadequate facilities, care; violated due process	Claims against state, DOC, or on behalf of others improper; insufficient facts	Leave to amend for claims against individual care providers only

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets standard for plausibility in pleadings)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (articulates plausibility standard for complaints)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state action requirement for § 1983)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (standards for excessive force by police)
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity)
Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (absolute judicial immunity)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states are not 'persons' under § 1983)