Thomas Threats, a frequent litigant who has filed approximately 10 civil actions against Rhode Island state entities, sued six state defendants claiming that for more than a decade, the Rhode Island Bureau of Criminal Identification maintained inaccurate criminal records that cost him employment opportunities, housing, and damaged his reputation. Threats alleged that many case dispositions were not recorded, expunged cases continued to appear on background checks, and various other inaccuracies persisted despite his efforts to correct them.
Judge DuBose found that Threats failed to state a plausible federal civil rights claim under Section 1983, noting that the state entities he sued are not 'persons' eligible for damages under the statute. While acknowledging Threats could pursue injunctive relief, she ruled his substantive due process claims inadequate. 'Due process does not equate with fairness, and simply because a governmental action may seem unfair, that does not mean the person suffering the unfairness has been denied due process,' DuBose wrote.
The court applied the First Circuit's demanding 'shocks the conscience' standard for substantive due process violations, emphasizing that only conduct that is 'so egregious, so outrageous' can support such claims. As DuBose explained, 'the requisite arbitrariness and caprice must be stunning, evidencing more than humdrum legal error.' She concluded that 'the litany of failings that the Plaintiff alleges here do not approach that standard.'
The case arose from Threats' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which triggered the court's obligation to screen the complaint under the Iqbal plausibility standard. Judge DuBose noted several technical deficiencies in the lawsuit, including that some named defendants like 'Rhode Island Court Administration' do not exist as legal entities, and that the 'Sheriffs' Division' is merely a unit within the Department of Public Safety.
Threats had argued that state judiciary officials failed to process his expungement requests and that the Sheriff's Department's improper service of process denied him court access. The court rejected these arguments, finding that while Rhode Island law provides automatic expungement for acquittals and dismissals with prejudice, most expungements require motions showing specific criteria are met. DuBose distinguished between claims that state procedures are inadequate versus claims that existing procedures were improperly followed.
The ruling reflects the First Circuit's recent emphasis on limiting substantive due process claims to truly egregious government conduct, as articulated in cases like Maldonado-González v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority and Foote v. Ludlow School Committee. The 'shocks-the-conscience requirement serves to separate constitutional substantive due process claims focused on executive action from tort law,' the court noted, requiring something far beyond ordinary negligence or even bad faith violations of state law.
Judge DuBose granted Threats 30 days until May 10, 2026, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. If no amended pleading is filed or if a new complaint fails to meet plausibility standards, the case will be dismissed entirely. The court deferred ruling on Threats' motion to proceed without paying court fees pending resolution of the underlying claims.