Porter et al v. Framingham, MA, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard W. Porter, et al.
v. 	Case No. 25-cv-520-SM-AJ
Framingham, Mass.,
Wakefield, Mass., and
Wilmington, Mass.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 25, 2026, the court granted self-represented
plaintiff Richard Porter leave to amend his complaint to cure a
number of deficiencies identified in that order (Doc. No. 3).
Mr. Porter having timely responded, Mr. Porter’s Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 4) is before the undersigned magistrate
judge for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2). As explained more fully below, the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Porter’s, that 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. §
Case 1:25-cv-00520-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
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.’” 	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).
Factual Allegations
Mr. Porter’s Amended Complaint is disjointed and difficult
to follow. He first asserts that he was arrested by Wakefield,
Massachusetts police in November 2020 after an individual broke
into a home Mr. Porter owns on Babson Street in Wakefield and
also filed twenty-eight criminal complaints against him. Mr.
Porter also refers to an automatic stay related to the same
property resulting from 1999 Bankruptcy Court order. Mr. Porter
has also attached several documents to his complaint which
appear to be copies of filings made in the Massachusetts
Registry of Deeds related to the Wakefield property.
Mr. Porter seeks monetary damages against Wakefield for
false arrest, the Towns of Wilmington and Framingham,
Massachusetts, based on some unexplained connection to
properties in those towns that are not referenced in the body of
Case 1:25-cv-00520-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
the Amended Complaint, and the individual who allegedly broke
into his home, who is not a defendant. Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 4)
at 2.
Analysis
A. Failure to State a Claim
Mr. Porter’s Amended Complaint, even construed liberally,
fails to state a claim for relief against any of the named
defendants. As to the Towns of Wilmington and Framingham, Mr.
Porter has alleged no facts that describe any claims against
them. Next, the person alleged to have broken into Mr. Porter’s
home is not a defendant. Finally, other than noting that someone
had filed multiple criminal complaints against him, Mr. Porter
provides no factual support for his false arrest claim. The bald
assertion that he was falsely arrested is not enough to sustain
this otherwise unsupported claim. Accordingly, the district
judge should dismiss this case because the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
B. Improper Venue
In addition to failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint,
though sparse, show that venue is improper in this court.1 The
1 Where the defense of improper venue is “obvious from the
face of the complaint and no further factual record is required
to be developed, the court may, sua sponte, dismiss the case.”
Hart v. Rowe, No. 20-cv-417-LM, 2021 WL 1581781, at *1 (D.N.H.
Case 1:25-cv-00520-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
term “venue” refers to “the geographic specification of the
proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that
is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district
courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1390(a).
Federal trial courts are divided geographically into
districts, and the venue statutes designate appropriate
districts for each case. The general venue statute provides that
a civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant
resides, if all defendants are residents of the State
in which the district is located; (2) a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district
in which an action may otherwise be brought as
provided in this section, any judicial district in
which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In this case, neither the defendants nor the events giving
rise to Mr. Porter’s complaint have any connection to New
Hampshire. Should the district court not adopt the
recommendation to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim
Mar. 5, 2021) (cleaned up), R & R adopted, 2021 WL 1581013
(D.N.H. Apr. 22, 2021); see also Wilkinson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't
of Corrs., 622 F. App'x. 805, 808–09 (11th Cir. 2015) (court may
dismiss a matter, sua sponte, for defective venue, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, after providing plaintiff with opportunity to
object).
Case 1:25-cv-00520-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
for relief, the court should dismiss it due to improper venue,
without prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate court.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4) because it fails to state a
claim for which relief can be granted. In the alternative, the
case should be dismissed because venue is improper in this
court.
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. 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
March 20, 2026
cc: 	Richard W. Porter, pro se
Phyllis M. Porter, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-00520-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 5