Meunier v. Belknap County Superior Court et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Robert Meunier
v. Civ. No. 24-cv-072-LM-AJ
Elizabeth Leonard et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Christopher Robert Meunier, proceeding in
forma pauperis, has sued a New Hampshire state court judge and
prosecutor, and a county police department, alleging that they
have unconstitutionally failed to act upon his proposed
resolution of pending criminal charges. Mr. Meunier’s complaint
(Doc. No. 1), is before the court for preliminary review
pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Meunier’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 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 7

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).
Factual Background1
Mr. Meunier’s underlying state criminal case stems from a
traffic stop on October 6, 2023, which resulted in his arrest on
twelve counts -- four felonies, four misdemeanors and four
“lesser charges.” Compl., Exh. A (Doc. No. 1-1) at 2. He
alleges that he was detained for 26 days without conviction”
following his arrest. Id. He is currently under “conditional
release.” Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 2, 5.
On January 28, 2024, Mr. Meunier filed a “Combined Demurrer
& Motion to Quash and Dismiss, Seeking Reduction to Misdemeanor
and Entry of Plea” in his criminal case. Compl., Exh. A (Doc.
No. 1-1). He describes this document as “propos[ing] a reasoned
1 Mr. Meunier proposed resolution of his state court
criminal case by filing a motion in state Superior Court, which
he attached to his complaint in this matter. Compl., Exh. A
(Doc. No. 1-1). The court considers the allegations in that
filing in its analysis.
Case 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 7

3
resolution to the charges predicted on established legal
principles.” Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶ 5. He further asserts that
his filing “was met with disregard, as the Defendants failed to
respond or to correct the record . . .” Id.
Mr. Meunier claims that the defendants violated his First
Amendment right to petition the government for redress and his
Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by “neglecting and
disregarding” his filing. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. He seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief finding that his rights have been violated and
ordering the defendants consider his filing, “update records
more accurately and ensure compliance with federal
constitutional norms.” Id. ¶ 10.
Discussion
As Mr. Chandler's complaint implicates a state criminal
proceeding, the Younger abstention doctrine comes into play.
The Younger doctrine, as described in Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971), “counsels federal-court abstention when there is
a pending state proceeding.” Amadi v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.,
245 F. Supp. 3d 316, 320 (D. Mass. 2017) (quoting Moore v. Sims,
442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979)). “The Younger doctrine reflects a
‘longstanding public policy against federal court interference
with state court proceedings,’ and is based on two conceptual
foundations.” Mass. Delivery Ass'n v. Coakley, 671 F.3d 33, 40
(1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 43). “[I]t is
Case 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 7

4
based on a notion that ‘courts of equity should not act, and
particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution,
when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not
suffer irreparable injury if denied relief.’” Id. “[M]ore
importantly, Younger rests upon basic notions of federalism and
comity, and also on a related desire to prevent unnecessary
duplication of legal proceedings.” Id.
The First Circuit has identified a three-step analysis to
determine whether Younger applies. Where all three of these
steps are resolved in favor of abstention, “abstention is
mandatory.” Rio Grande Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc. v. Rullan, 397
F.3d 56, 68 (1st Cir. 2005). First, the state proceeding must be
a criminal prosecution, civil enforcement proceeding or a civil
proceeding “uniquely in the furtherance of the state courts’
ability to perform their judicial functions.” Sirva Relocation,
LLC v. Richie, 794 F.3d 185, 191 (1st Cir. 2015) Second, the
case must meet the three Middlesex2 factors: 1) the state
proceeding is ongoing, 2) it involves significant state
interests and 3) it permits the plaintiff to raise his federal
claims. Id. at 193. If those factors support abstention, the
court must then consider whether exceptions to Younger apply.
Id. Exceptions to the Younger doctrine apply in situation
2 See Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982).
Case 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 4 of 7

5
involving “bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual
circumstances that would call for equitable relief.” Bettencourt
v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 904 F.2d 772, 779 (1st Cir.
1990). “These exceptions have been very narrowly construed by
the [Supreme] Court.” United Books, Inc. v. Conte, 739 F.2d 30,
34 (1st Cir. 1984) (internal citations omitted); see also C.
Wright, A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4255 (3d
ed.) (“There is no case since Younger was decided in which the
[Supreme] Court has found that the exception for bad faith or
harassment was applicable[,]” and “[l]itigants who have sought
to bring themselves within the exceptions to Younger have had
almost as little success in the lower courts.”).
Here, all Younger factors favor abstention, and Mr.
Meunier’s submissions do not persuade the court that he is the
victim of bad faith or harassment, or that any other
extraordinary circumstances exist such that abstention would be
inappropriate. In sum, he filed a motion seeking a negotiated
resolution in his pending state criminal case which has yet to
be acted upon. This implicates important state interests
associated with the state's administration of its criminal laws.
Mr. Meunier also has the opportunity to advance his
constitutional challenge and “advocate for [negotiated
resolution] on the same grounds he would cite in this Court.”
Graham v. Maine, No. 20-cv-315-JDL, 2020 WL 6811492, at *1 (D.
Case 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 5 of 7

6
Me. Oct. 5, 2020) (pre-trial detainee's habeas petition seeking
release from pretrial confinement properly dismissed based on
Younger abstention); see also Enwonwu v. Mass. Super. Court, No.
1:12-cv-10703-DJC, 2012 WL 1802056, at *3 n.7 (D. Mass. May 16,
2012) (“Courts have consistently applied the Younger doctrine to
dismiss habeas claims by pretrial detainees based on excessive
bail, claims of actual innocence, or due process violations,
absent bad faith, harassment, or [other] extraordinary
circumstances.”).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
Mr. Meunier’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to the
Younger abstention doctrine. 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
Case 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 6 of 7

7
Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 3, 2024
Cc: Christopher Robert Meunier, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00072-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 04/03/24 Page 7 of 7