Romero, Jr. v. State of Alaska, 4:24-cv-00033

Plaintiff George Moises Romero, Jr., a self-represented litigant and prisoner, filed five civil actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska between December 2024 and January 2025.
The cases involved multiple defendants, including law enforcement, state officials, correctional officers, and judicial officers, and were based on incidents such as the issuance of a protective order, alleged interference with business, false arrest, criminal prosecution, and prison conditions.
The Court conducted collective screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and found that the complaints shared factual overlap and legal deficiencies, many failing to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Claims included alleged deprivation of the right to engage in interstate commerce, malicious prosecution, excessive force, fabrication of evidence, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement or denial of medical care.
The Court dismissed three cases outright without leave to amend and allowed leave to amend in two cases, but only as to specific, narrowly defined claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Section 1983: Right to Interstate Commerce	Defendants unlawfully prevented Romero from business events	No recognized federal right	No federal constitutional right; claim dismissed with prejudice
Excessive Force During Arrest (Case 30)	Officers used excessive force in January 2023 arrest	Force objectively reasonable	Plaintiff may amend only as to excess force claim against arresting officers
Fabrication of Evidence (Case 31)	Parole officer fabricated evidence for arrest warrant	No deliberate fabrication alleged	Leave to amend only if specific evidence is identified; other parties dismissed
Prison Conditions/Medical Care (Case 25-02)	Detention conditions & inadequate medical care unconstitutional	Official capacity claims immune	Can amend claims as to specific denials to plaintiff himself, but not as class claim
Malicious Prosecution (Case 30)	Prosecutor/judge/defense counsel acted maliciously	Prosecutor/judge immune; no right	Claims dismissed with prejudice against judicial & prosecutorial defendants

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim to relief under Rule 8)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaints must offer more than labels and conclusions to survive dismissal)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness governs excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under Section 1983 requires policy or custom)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors are absolutely immune for acts within scope of prosecutorial duties)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state action required under Section 1983)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state agencies are not persons under Section 1983)
Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (judicial immunity for judicial acts)
Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995) (requirements for Section 1983 malicious prosecution)