Romero, Jr. v. McAfee, 4:24-cv-00028

George Moises Romero, Jr., a self-represented prisoner, filed five civil rights actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, alleging various constitutional and statutory violations related to parole hearings, arrests, prosecution, and prison conditions.
The Court screened all five complaints under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for sufficiency under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, identifying similar factual and legal deficiencies across the cases.
Romero's complaints included claims against state troopers, parole officers, judges, attorneys, municipalities, and prison officials, with requests for damages and other relief relating to business interference, excessive force, malicious prosecution, fabricated evidence, lack of training, and inadequate prison conditions.
Several claims alleged violations of a "right to engage in interstate commerce" and sought remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but failed to sufficiently plead necessary elements or actionable rights.
The Court identified that some claims must be dismissed with prejudice (no amendment allowed) and allowed leave to amend only on specific issues: excessive force, evidence fabrication, and prison conditions/medical care.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to engage in interstate commerce under § 1983	Romero claims state actors interfered with his commercial activities	(Implicit) No such federal right exists	No such federal constitutional right; dismissed with prejudice.
Excessive force during arrest	Romero alleges officers used unreasonable, humiliating force	(Implicit) Actions were justified	Plausible claim possible; leave to amend granted for more factual detail.
Malicious prosecution/bias by judges/prosecutor	Romero asserts judicial/prosecutorial bias and lack of probable cause	Absolute immunity applies	Claims against judges/prosecutors/public defender dismissed with prejudice.
Fabrication of evidence for parole violation	Romero alleges parole officer fabricated evidence for arrest	(Implicit) No fabrication or specificity	Leave to amend given only as to specific facts for alleged fabrication by one officer.
Failure to train (municipal liability)	Romero alleges City and State failed to adequately train staff	(Implicit) No showing of policy/custom	No viable claim; state not a "person" under § 1983; city claim dismissed as futile.
Prison conditions and medical care	Romero challenges conditions and medical care at jail	(Implicit) Conditions not unconstitutional	Leave to amend solely as to specific deprivations and named defendants.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standard; conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (articulates objective reasonableness standard for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations requires policy or custom)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors for actions during judicial phase)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees evaluated under Due Process Clause)
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states not persons under § 1983)