Brodeur v. MA, State of et al

1:17-cv-00445Nhd07.03.2018

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Brodeur
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-445-PB
State of Massachusetts; Governor
Charlie Baker (and his staff); Senator
Jeanne Shaheen (and her staff); Cara Wry;
Mass. RMV; and Police Officers FNU Moffa
and John Does 1 & 2
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff, Christopher Brodeur, has filed a motion
for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. No. 35), which has been
referred to the magistrate judge for a Report and
Recommendation. 	See March 5, 2018 Order. 	The motion (Doc. No.
35) seeks an order enjoining Brodeur’s pending state
prosecutions, arising out of encounters with police officers in
New Hampshire on September 27 and 30, 2017. 	Plaintiff alleges
that his federal rights, including the right to a speedy trial,
are jeopardized in the pending state prosecutions. 	Plaintiff
further alleges that the state court judge has ordered an
examination of Brodeur to ascertain if he is competent, which
will likely result in further delays of the disposition of his
Case 1:17-cv-00445-PB Document 37 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 3
criminal cases.1 	Brodeur asserts that he is represented by
court-appointed counsel in those proceedings.
A prerequisite to obtaining a preliminary injunction is a
demonstration of a likelihood of success on the merits. 	See
Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736 (2015). 	The claims
underlying Brodeur’s motion for emergency relief fall within the
scope of the Younger abstention doctrine, see Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), and are subject to dismissal on that basis.
Brodeur has not demonstrated an inability to raise his federal
claims in the state prosecutions, and no exception to Younger
abstention appears applicable here. 	See id. at 53-54.
Furthermore, the claims underlying the motion for emergency
1Brodeur’s status as a pro se, in forma pauperis litigant in
this case, and his assertion that the state court judge has
inquired into his competency, together may raise a question
whether this court should issue an order, sua sponte, under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 	No such order is necessary or appropriate
here, however, as, for reasons stated in this Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) and in the Oct. 26, 2017 R&R (Doc. No.
14), Brodeur has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. 	See Grimes v. S.N.H. Univ., No. 17-cv-266-SM, 2017
WL 4277134, at *1 & n.1, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157801, at *1 &
n.1 (D.N.H. Aug. 31, 2017) (court may dismiss claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) asserted in federal case filed by plaintiff
in state court competency proceedings), R&R approved by 2017 WL
4271261, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156042 (D.N.H. Sept. 25, 2017);
see also Hartmann v. Carroll, 582 F. App’x 111, 113 (3d Cir.
2014) (“A trial court contemplating appointment of a
representative or counsel in a civil case must first find ‘that
the plaintiff’s claim has arguable merit in fact and law.’”
(citations omitted) (emphasis in original)).
2
Case 1:17-cv-00445-PB Document 37 Filed 03/07/18 Page 2 of 3
relief post-date all of the events at issue in the complaint,
and would not be properly added to this case at this juncture.
As plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of any claim in this case, see Oct. 26, 2017 R&R (Doc.
No. 14) (recommending dismissal of action), the motion for
emergency relief (Doc. No. 35) should be denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
the motion for emergency relief (Doc. No. 35). 	Any objections
to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The fourteen day period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to
file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 7, 2018
cc: 	Christopher Brodeur, pro se
3
Case 1:17-cv-00445-PB Document 37 Filed 03/07/18 Page 3 of 3

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.