Brown v. Littleton Coin Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Demetrius A. Brown
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-70-SE
Littleton Coin Co.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Demetrius A. Brown, appearing pro se, sued the
Littleton Coin Co. (“LCC”), alleging that LCC violated his
constitutional rights and impermissibly discriminated against
him when it refused to sell him a commemorative coin while he
was incarcerated. 	Mr. Brown’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) is before
this magistrate judge for preliminary review, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(1).
Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Brown’s, which are 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
Case 1:22-cv-00070-SE Document 12 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 5

2
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.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). 	The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. 	See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Background
In December 2021, while incarcerated in South Carolina, Mr.
Brown ordered a John F. Kennedy commemorative coin from the
defendant. 	Mr. Brown was responding to a newspaper
advertisement offering the Kennedy coin at no charge, as well as
a selection of other coins available for purchase. 	Fearing that
his mail would be tampered with, Mr. Brown completed the order
form with his home address, where his wife was then residing. 	A
few weeks later, LCC informed Mr. Brown by letter that it would
not send coins to, or create accounts and accept payments from,
individuals in correctional facilities, even if they used an
alternate address.
Discussion
Construing his complaint liberally, Mr. Brown asserts the
following claims against LCC: 1) violation of Title II of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a - 2000a-6; 2)
violation Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1942, 42 U.S.C. §
Case 1:22-cv-00070-SE Document 12 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 5

3
2000d; 3) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
A. Title II
Title II of the Civil Rights Act provides that “[a]ll
persons should be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations of any place of public accommodation . . .
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
color, religion, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a);
Manning v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., No. 21-CV-10833-ADB,
2022 WL 194999, at *5 (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2022).
Assuming that LCC is a “public accommodation,” Mr. Brown’s
complaint contains no facts suggestive of discrimination on any
prohibited ground. 	It should therefore be dismissed.
B. Title VI
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids race,
color, and national origin discrimination in federally funded
programs or activities. 	42 U.S.C. § 2000d. 	This claim suffers
from at least two legal shortcomings. 	First, there is no
allegation that LCC received federal funding. 	Second, as with
Mr. Brown’s first claim, the lack of any factual support for a
claim of illegal discrimination warrants dismissal of this
claim.
C. Section 1983
Case 1:22-cv-00070-SE Document 12 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 5

4
The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “provides a cause
of action for state deprivations of federal rights.” 	Nieves v.
Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1721 (2019). 	“To state a claim under
that statute, a plaintiff must assert two allegations: (1) that
some person deprived her of a federal right, and (2) that such
person acted under color of state or territorial law.”
Grapentine v. Pawtucket Credit Union, 755 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir.
2014) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
“Significantly, § 1983 does not apply to merely private conduct,
no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” 	Id.
Mr. Brown does not allege any facts demonstrating, or from
which it could be reasonably inferred, that LCC is a state actor
subject to suit under § 1983. 	Accordingly, he has failed to
state a claim for relief under § 1983, and the district judge
should dismiss the § 1983 claim against LCC.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this action in its entirety, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 	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.
Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report
and Recommendation are subject to review in the district court.
Case 1:22-cv-00070-SE Document 12 Filed 07/29/22 Page 4 of 5

5
See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554,
564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. Failure to file
any 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
July 29, 2022
cc: 	Demetrius A. Brown, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00070-SE Document 12 Filed 07/29/22 Page 5 of 5