Romero, Jr. v. Smoot, 4:24-cv-00031

Plaintiff George Moises Romero, Jr., a self-represented prisoner, filed five related civil cases in the District of Alaska between December 2024 and January 2025, mostly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various constitutional and statutory violations by state officials, law enforcement, parole officers, and judicial actors.
The court collectively screened all five cases for legal sufficiency, as required for prisoner complaints under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Common factual themes involved an alleged conspiracy to prevent Romero from engaging in business activities, the issuance and service of a protective order against him, his arrest(s), criminal prosecution, conditions of confinement, and claims of fabricated evidence and excessive force.
The court dismissed the majority of the claims with prejudice, finding that they failed to state a federal claim, were not asserted against proper defendants, or were based on non-cognizable rights (e.g., no constitutional right to “engage in interstate commerce”).
Limited leave to amend was granted in three cases for certain claims (excessive force, deliberate fabrication of evidence, and conditions of confinement/medical care), while two cases were dismissed outright without leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can claims be brought under § 1983 against non-state actors?	Sued individuals including private parties or spouses of police on § 1983 theories	No argument stated	No, § 1983 only applies to state actors
Is there a federal constitutional right to "engage in interstate commerce" under § 1983?	Romero: Defendants violated his "right" by interfering with business	No federal right exists	No such right under the Constitution
Can absolute immunity bar claims against judicial officers and prosecutors?	Romero: Named judges and prosecutors as defendants	Judicial/prosecutorial immunity applies	All such claims dismissed with prejudice
Are the facts sufficient to support claims of excessive force, fabrication of evidence, or conditions of confinement?	Alleged excessive force during arrest, fabricated evidence, and poor prison conditions	N/A (screening phase)	Leave to amend granted on these limited claims

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (explaining pleading standards under Rule 8 and "plausibility" for federal claims)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishing objective reasonableness standard for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state actors required for § 1983 liability)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states not "persons" under § 1983; cannot be sued for damages)