NIMA NGAPEY v. MAINE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

LIONEL A. NIMA NGAPEY, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) 2:22-cv-00078-NT

)

MAINE WORKERS )

COMPENSATION BOARD, )

)

Defendant )

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW

OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Plaintiff alleges Defendant erred when it denied his claim for workers’

compensation benefits. With his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, which motion the Court granted. (Motion, ECF No. 3; Order, ECF No. 5.) In

accordance with the in forma pauperis statute, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint

is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

After a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, I recommend the Court dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges he requested from his former employer medical leave for a sleeping

disorder and work-related stress. Plaintiff contends the Maine Employer’s Mutual

Insurance Company (MEMIC) denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits

without stating the reason for the denial, and Defendant subsequently denied his claim for

benefits. (Complaint, ¶ III, ECF No. 1.) He asserts Defendant’s decision violated the

requirements of the United States Constitution and federal law.

LEGAL STANDARD

The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure

meaningful access to the federal courts for those persons unable to pay the costs of bringing

an action. When a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, however, “the court shall dismiss

the case at any time if the court determines,” inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or

malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

“Dismissals [under § 1915] are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so

as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such

complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be

granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the

benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640

F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A self-represented

plaintiff is not exempt from this framework, but the court must construe his complaint

‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661,

at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This is

“not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a

claim.” Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980).

DISCUSSION

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They cannot act in the absence of

subject matter jurisdiction, and they have a sua sponte duty to confirm the existence of

jurisdiction in the face of apparent jurisdictional defects.” United States v. Univ. of Mass.,

Worcester, 812 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir. 2016).

Here, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution presents a

jurisdictional obstacle to Plaintiff’s ability to assert a claim against Defendant in federal

court. Defendant, an agency of the State of Maine, is immune under the Eleventh

Amendment from suits brought by citizens in federal court. Poirier v. Mass. Dep’t of

Corr., 558 F.3d 92, 97 (1st Cir. 2009) (“states and their agencies are entitled to sovereign

immunity”); Palma v. Workers Comp. Bd. of N.Y., 151 Fed. App’x 20, 21-22 (2nd Cir.

2005) (Workers Compensation “Board, as an agency of the New York State government,

is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.”) Furthermore, while a

federal district court would have jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

over claims against persons exercising state authority,1 § 1983 does not authorize claims

1 Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable

to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,

except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in

against the state or its agencies. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989);

see also Nieves–Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 124 (1st Cir. 2003) (“No cause of

action for damages is stated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state, its agency, or its

officials acting in an official capacity.”).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),

I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

NOTICE

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate

judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district

court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen

(14) days of being served with a copy thereof.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right

to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

/s/ John C. Nivison

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated this 12th day of April, 2022.

such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory

decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. …

42 U.S.C. § 1983.