Trainor v. Salisbury, MA, Town of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
William Trainor
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-981-PB
Town of Salisbury, MA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff William Trainor has filed a complaint
(Doc. No. 1), which is before the court for preliminary review
pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	Trainor
has also moved twice for a hearing (Doc. Nos. 3 & 5). 	The court
considers the factual assertions in both the complaint and the
two motions in this preliminary review. 	For the reasons that
follow, the district judge should dismiss this lawsuit.
Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Trainor’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. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). 	In conducting its preliminary review,
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 9

2
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).
Background
Plaintiff’s complaint is styled as an appeal from “unlawful
decisions” made by the Massachusetts Housing Court. 	According
to that court’s docket, the plaintiff is an intervenor in an
action brought by the Massachusetts Attorney general. 	See
Attorney Gen. for the Commonwealth of Mass. v. C & G Renewable
Energy Sys., Inc., No. 19H77CV000152, (Mass. Housing Ct., filed
June 6, 2019). 	The docket indicates that the action was
commenced by a petition to appoint a receiver with respect to
the defendant in that case. 	See id., Doc. No. 1. 1 	The docket
further indicates that plaintiff, as intervenor, filed a motion
1 In separate litigation, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
C&G Renewable Energy Systems, Inc., and the plaintiff entered
into a consent decree to resolve an environmental claim brought
by the Commonwealth. 	See Commonwealth of Mass. v. C & G
Renewables, et al., No. 1784CV01694, (Mass. Super. March 28,
2019). 	Plaintiff’s relationship to C & G Renewables is not
clear from either Massachusetts docket.
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 9

3
for injunctive relief on February 5, 2020. 	See id., Doc. No.
46. 	Although the court had scheduled a hearing on that motion,
the hearing has been rescheduled to an undetermined date due to
the Covid-19 pandemic. 	See id., Doc. No. 53. 	The case,
however, remains open. 2
Although the complaint is somewhat unclear, plaintiff’s
appeal to this court is based on alleged errors made by the
Massachusetts Housing Court, and the fact that there is no date
available to hear an appeal for a minimum of twenty months.
Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1. 	See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211A, § 10
(providing appellate jurisdiction to Massachusetts Appeals Court
over Housing Court judgments).
Discussion
A. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction
To the extent the plaintiff seeks to appeal decisions of
the Massachusetts Housing Court, this court is without subject
matter jurisdiction to address such a claim. It is clear that
plaintiff is challenging the trial court’s rulings. 	See, e.g.,
Compl. (Doc. No 1) at 9 (listing trial court errors). But as the
First Circuit Court Appeals has observed:
2 The Housing Court remains open for remote proceedings. See
Mass. Housing Court Standing Order 6-20 (Issued Oct. 5, 2020,
eff. Oct. 19, 2020) https://www.mass.gov/housing-court-
rules/housing-court-standing-order-6-20-temporary-modifications-
to-court-operations
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 3 of 9

4
[F]ederal district courts do not sit as “super
appellate courts” reviewing errors allegedly committed
by a state court. This is so whether the state-court
judgment is final, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), or
whether, and more forcefully, state proceedings remain
pending, as is apparently the case here. See Worldwide
Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th
Cir. 1986) (and cases cited therein)
Dempsey v. Massachusetts State, 959 F.2d 230, 1992 WL 60438, at
*1 (1st Cir. 1992) (unpublished).
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss this case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
B. Abstention
In the alternative, Colorado River abstention requires
dismissal of this case. 	The Colorado River abstention doctrine
“allows federal courts in limited instances to stay or dismiss
proceedings that overlap with concurrent litigation in state
court.” 	Jiménez v. Rodríguez–Pagán, 597 F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir.
2010) (citing Colo. River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800 (1976)). 	This abstention doctrine “rest[s] on
considerations of ‘[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard
to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive
disposition of litigation.’” Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 817
(citation omitted). 	Colorado River abstention, which is
appropriate in exceptional circumstances, “is to be used
sparingly and approached with great caution.” Nazario–Lugo v.
Caribevisión Holdings, Inc., 670 F.3d 109, 115 (1st Cir. 2012).
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 4 of 9

5
Where, as here, a parallel state proceeding is pending, the
relevant factors that the federal court may consider in
determining whether to abstain, include, but are not limited to,
the following:
“(1) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction
over a res; (2) the [geographical] inconvenience of
the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding
piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the
forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether state or
federal law controls; (6) the adequacy of the state
forum to protect the parties' interests; (7) the
vexatious or contrived nature of the federal claim;
and (8) respect for the principles underlying removal
jurisdiction.”
Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 27–28 (citation omitted). 	The court
addresses these factors in turn.
1. Jurisdiction over a Res
This factor, the assumption of jurisdiction over a res,
embodies a prudential concern for deferring to another court for
the sake of “‘comprehensive disposition of rights in a
particular piece of property.’” 	Id. at 28 n.6 (citation
omitted). 	As previously described, the pending Massachusetts
action, filed in June 2019, involves an environmental cleanup of
property in Massachusetts. 	While plaintiff styles this case as
an “appeal,” the dockets in the pending case and the previously-
settled case demonstrate that the state court has before it all
the issues necessary for a complete disposition of the issues
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 5 of 9

6
related to the cleanup of the subject property. 	This factor
therefore favors abstention.
2. 	Geographical Convenience
There is no indication in the complaint that this court’s
location in Concord, New Hampshire is any more convenient to the
parties and counsel in the parallel litigation than the
Massachusetts court in Lawrence, Massachusetts. 	This factor,
therefore, has no impact on the court’s analysis.
3. Desirability of Avoiding Piecemeal Litigation
The next factor at issue in the abstention analysis is an
interest in avoiding piecemeal litigation. “‘[C]oncerns about
piecemeal litigation . . . focus on the implications and
practical effects of litigating suits deriv[ed] from the same
transaction in two separate fora, and weigh in favor of
dismissal only if there is some exceptional basis for dismissing
one action in favor of the other.’” 	Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 29
(citation omitted). 	In the first instance, this action is not
only “derived from the same transaction” as the Massachusetts
case, it is an attempt to litigate that very case in this forum.
The state court case has proceeded further than this case, and
given that the parallel case remains open, any rulings in this
court necessarily create a strong likelihood of inconsistent
rulings. 	To avoid the risk of potentially inconsistent rulings
on identical issues, this factor favors abstention.
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 6 of 9

7
4. Order in Which the Forums Obtained Jurisdiction
The state court action was filed in June 2019, more than
one year before this action. 	The docket indicates that the
Massachusetts court has already issued numerous decisions
affecting the parties to that case. 	This case, in contrast,
has not progressed past preliminary review. 	That factor favors
abstention. 	Cf. Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 31 (“absence of any
federal proceedings beyond a motion to dismiss favors the
surrender of jurisdiction”) (citing Colo. River, 424 U.S. at
820).
5. Whether State or Federal Law Controls
Although plaintiff makes reference his federal
constitutional rights being violated in the proceeding below, a
full and fair reading of his complaint shows that he is seeking
review of what he considers to be legally erroneous state-law
rulings by the Massachusetts court. 	It “is only in ‘rare
instances’ that the presence of state-law issues creates any
momentum toward deferring to pending local litigation under the
Colorado River doctrine.” 	Nazario–Lugo, 670 F.3d at 118
(citation omitted). 	This factor, therefore, favors abstention.
6. 	Adequacy of State Forum
Other than pandemic-related delays – which are prevalent in
this court as well, see, e.g., Administrative Order on Civil
Jury Trials, No. 20-30 (D.N.H. Sept. 11, 2020), the plaintiff
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 7 of 9

8
identifies no inadequacies in the Massachusetts forum. 	His case
remains open on the Housing Court docket; there is no indication
that plaintiff’s appellate rights have been diminished.
Therefore, this factor favors abstention. 3
7. 	Vexatious or Contrived Nature of the Federal Claim
As the court does not find plaintiff’s complaint to be
vexatious or contrived, this factor neither favors nor disfavors
abstention.
8. 	Respect for Removal Principles
This factor is not applicable to this case.
In sum, the bulk of relevant factors support application of
the Colorado River doctrine to this case and warrant the court
declining to exercise any jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, pursuant to the Colorado
River doctrine. 	If the district judge adopts this
recommendation, plaintiff’s motions for hearing (Doc. Nos. 3 and
5) should be dismissed as moot.
3 If “for some unexpected reason the state forum does turn
out to be inadequate in some respect” the federal court remains
open if subsequent developments demonstrate “the inadequacy of
the state forum.” 	Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr.
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28 (1983).
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 8 of 9

9
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 specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation 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
October 27, 2020
cc: 	William Trainor, pro se
Case 1:20-cv-00981-PB Document 6 Filed 10/27/20 Page 9 of 9