Bryan v. Dubrousky et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
NASEEF BRYAN
v. Civ. No. 26-cv-14-LM-TSM
ANASTASIA DUBROVKSY AND
ASHLEY N.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is self-represented Plaintiff Naseef Bryan, Jr.’s complaint, (Doc. No. 1)
filed in forma pauperis, naming the Clerk of Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit and a First Circuit case manager as Defendants. The matter is before this court for
preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW STANDARD
The court may dismiss claims asserted by a plaintiff who is proceeding in forma pauperis,
if: the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, the
complaint fails to state a claim, or the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
To determine whether to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court strips away legal conclusions;
takes as true the factual content in the complaint as a whole, and the inferences reasonably drawn
from those facts; and considers whether the plaintiff has stated a claim that is plausible on its face.
Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). In determining whether a pro se complaint states a claim, the court must
construe the complaint liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case 1:26-cv-00014-LM-TSM Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
BACKGROUND
Mr. Bryan’s complaint contains few facts from which the court can discern any potential
claims. It appears that he is claiming injury resulting from a delay in processing an appeal in the
First Circuit Court of Appeals he filed on May 15, 2025. See In re: Bryan No. 25-1473 (1st Cir.
filed May 15, 2025). Specifically, he alleges that he has “yet to receive an ‘order’ or ‘judgment’
from the court.” Doc No. 1 at pg. 2. Mr. Bryan claims that Defendants are liable for violating his
civil rights.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Bryan’s complaint specifically mentions 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-2, which prohibits
depriving or interfering with various rights secured by sections 2000a or 2000a-1. Those sections
prohibit discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion or national origin. There are
no facts alleged in the complaint which can plausibly support such a claim.
Moreover, even if the complaint did allege any facts suggestive of discrimination,
Defendants are immune from suit. As the court noted in an earlier suit Mr. Bryan brought against
the First Circuit Clerk of Court:
Absolute quasi-judicial immunity bars claims for damages against court personnel
performing discretionary functions closely related to the judicial process. See id. at
3. Such “immunity applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are ‘basic
and integral part[s] of the judicial function,’ unless those acts are done ‘in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction.’” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (citation omitted). Such immunity operates “where the need for liability in
damages is low,” given the safeguards built into the judicial process, “and the need
for a backstop to judicial immunity [is] high,” to avoid the risk that disappointed
litigants, unable to sue judges, would “ ‘vent their wrath on clerks, court reporters,
and other judicial adjuncts.’ ” Id. (citations omitted).
A clerk’s decisions relating to the docketing and processing of a case and a litigant’s
requests for expedited consideration implicate critical functions of the clerk’s office
with respect to the management and maintenance of the court’s docket. Those
functions are integral to the judicial process. Cf. Ives v. Agastoni, No. CV 15-
30153-MAP, 2015 WL 9647559, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2015) (“accepting
filings” and “recording rulings” are judicial functions “regularly performed by
Case 1:26-cv-00014-LM-TSM Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
judges and clerks within the scope of their jurisdiction”), R&R adopted, 2016 WL
79881 (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2016). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims relating to the
alleged delays in the processing of his interlocutory appeal fall within the scope of
the defendant's quasi-judicial immunity. For that reason, the district judge should
dismiss those claims.
Bryan v. U.S. Ct. of Appeals, First Cir. Clerk, No. 24-CV-162-JL-AJ, 2024 WL 3034624, at *2
(D.N.H. June 10, 2024), report and recommendation approved sub nom. Bryan v. U.S. Ct. of
Appeals, No. 24-CV-162-JL, 2024 WL 3028407 (D.N.H. June 14, 2024).
The same rationale applies to the instant suit against the Clerk of Court and case manager.
Accordingly, in addition to Mr. Bryan’s failure to state a claim for relief, the district judge should
dismiss this case based on Defendants’ immunity.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss this action based on Mr. Bryan’s
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or, in the alternative, because Defendants
are immune from suit. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days of receipt of this notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be
extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection 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). Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report and Recommendation “are subject
to review in the district court.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally, any issues “not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.” Id.
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: February 4, 2026
cc: Naseef Bryan, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00014-LM-TSM Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3