BURNHAM v. PORTLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DUSTIN BURNHAM, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:24-cv-00258-JAW ) PORTLAND HOUSING ) AUTHORITY et al., ) ) Defendants ) RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW One day after his prior complaint against the Portland Housing Authority and the Maine State Housing Authority was dismissed for failing to state a claim, see Burnham v. Portland Hous. Auth., No. 2:24-cv-00196-JAW, 2024 WL 3045212 (D. Me. June 18, 2024) (rec. dec.), aff’d, 2024 WL 3440308 (D. Me. July 16, 2024), Dustin Burnham initiated this duplicative action against the same defendants, see Complaint (ECF No. 1). I granted Burnham’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 6, so his new complaint is before me for preliminary review, see 19 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Burnham’s new complaint does nothing to remedy the shortcomings that precipitated the dismissal of his previous complaint—if anything, Burnham offers even fewer pertinent details than before. See Complaint at 4-9. Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS his new complaint for same reasons it dismissed his previous complaint. See Burnham, 2024 WL 3045212, at *1. Given the duplicative nature of this matter and Burnham’s failure to engage with the Court’s reasons for dismissing his previous complaint, I also recommend that the Court WARN him that his ability to file new actions in this Court may be restricted if he continues to file meritless complaints. See Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir. 1993) (noting that courts may impose filing restrictions on abusive litigants after adequate notice). 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 after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. 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. Dated: July 19, 2024 /s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge