Bergeron v. NH, State of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael Joseph Bergeron, Jr.
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-579-JL
State of New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Joseph Bergeron, Jr., proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a Complaint, Doc. No. 1, that is before this
court for preliminary review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. 	Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings filed in forma pauperis. 	See LR 4.3(d). 	The
magistrate judge may recommend to the district judge that one or
more claims be dismissed if, among other things, the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). 	In conducting
its preliminary review, the court construes pro se complaints
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). 	The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief. 	Hernandez-Cuevas
Case 1:18-cv-00579-JL Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 4

2
v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
II. 	Background
Bergeron states that the State of New Hampshire, acting
through its Attorney General’s office, has unconstitutionally
prosecuted him. 	He bases this claim on Article III, section 2
of the United States Constitution, which states that The Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in which a state
is a party. 	Accordingly, Bergeron asserts, his convictions in
state trial courts are unconstitutional because he was not tried
in the United States Supreme Court. 	He seeks compensation and
to have his convictions overturned.
III. 	Discussion
A. 	42 U.S.C. § 1983
The court construes Bergeron’s claim for damages as
intending to be asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
authorizes claims for relief filed by plaintiffs alleging that a
defendant acting under color of state law violated their federal
rights. 	Bergeron has failed to set forth a constitutional
violation. 	Under our federal system, the “States possess
primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.”
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 n.3 (1995) (internal
Case 1:18-cv-00579-JL Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 2 of 4

3
quotation marks omitted); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91,
109 (1945) (plurality opinion) (“Our national government is one
of delegated powers alone. 	Under our federal system the
administration of criminal justice rests with the States except
as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers,
has created offenses against the United States”).
B. 	Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Bergman’s request for this court to overturn his state
court convictions is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
which holds that, as a general rule subject to certain
exceptions not relevant here, lower federal courts cannot review
and reverse prior state judgments. 	See D.C. Ct. App. v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S.
413 (1923); Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 17-
1916, 2018 WL 5094793, at *2 (1st Cir. Oct. 19, 2018). 	The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests this court of jurisdiction over
cases brought by parties that lost in state court, complaining
of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced, and “‘inviting district
court review and rejection of [the state court’s] judgments.’”
Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532, (2011) (quoting Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284
(2005)); McKenna v. Curtin, 869 F.3d 44, 47 (1st Cir. 2017).
Case 1:18-cv-00579-JL Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. 	Conclusion
The district judge should dismiss this civil rights action,
in its entirety, based on the issues discussed herein. 	Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within 14 days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); LR 7.2(d). 	The 14-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
December 3, 2018
cc: 	Michael 	Joseph 	Bergeron, 	Jr., 	pro 	se
Case 1:18-cv-00579-JL Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 4 of 4