Romero, Jr. v. Pitzer, 4:24-cv-00030

Plaintiff George Moises Romero, Jr., a self-represented prisoner, filed five related civil rights actions in the District of Alaska between December 2024 and January 2025, each naming various state and local officials or entities.
The complaints center around overlapping claims arising from plaintiff's arrests, parole issues, state court proceedings, and conditions during his incarceration at Fairbanks Correctional Center.
The court screened all five complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, which require early dismissal of frivolous, malicious, or legally deficient prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities.
Allegations included interference with plaintiff's business dealings, excessive force during arrest, fabrication of evidence to obtain arrest warrants, failure to train by government entities, and unconstitutional prison conditions and inadequate medical care.
Some defendants (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, state of Alaska) raised immunity or lack of capacity arguments per federal law.
The court dismissed two complaints with prejudice, allowed leave to amend on certain claims in three cases, and gave procedural instructions for amendment and payment of fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Section 1983 claim for interference with business activities	Defendants retaliated against Romero's boxing business, violating his civil rights	No plausible federal right to "interstate commerce" was implicated	Dismissed with prejudice; no actionable Section 1983 claim
Section 1983 claim for excessive force in arrest	Romero alleges excessive, humiliating force during Jan. 21, 2023 arrest	Use of force was reasonable under the circumstances	Leave to amend granted solely on the excessive force claim against specific officers
Section 1983 claim for fabrication of evidence in parole proceedings	Parole officer allegedly fabricated evidence to support a warrant	No specific facts or fabricated statements were identified	Leave to amend as to the parole officer, but dismissed as to other defendants
Section 1983 claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement/medical care	Overcrowding, no outdoor recreation, inadequate medical care for self/other inmates	State not a 'person' under Section 1983, and plaintiff cannot represent others	Leave to amend only as to plaintiff's own medical/conditions claims, against specific providers

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (defines standards for excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors have absolute immunity for actions in prosecutorial role)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (Section 1983 requires state actor)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability arises only for actions taken under official policy or custom)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainee conditions-of-confinement claims analyzed under Due Process Clause)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are not "persons" and cannot be sued under Section 1983)
Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156 (judicial immunity for acts taken in judicial capacity)