Triple P Ranch Realty Trust et al v. Candia, NH, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Triple P Ranch Realty Trust,
Richard W. Porter, Trustee
v. Civ. No. 25-cv-522-LM-AJ
Town of Candia
Candia Police Dept.
Michael Thompson
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 25, 2026, the court ordered self-represented
plaintiff Richard Porter, identifying himself as the trustee of
the Triple P Ranch Realty Trust,” to file an amended complaint
to correct several deficiencies the court identified in his
original filing.1 Mr. Porter’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 8) is
before the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). Though Mr. Porter
timely filed an amended complaint, the new filing cures none of
the identified deficiencies. This case should therefore be
dismissed.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Porter’s, that are filed in forma pauperis.
1 Local Rule 83.6(c) permits a trustee who is the sole
beneficiary of a trust to represent the trust pro se. for
purposes of preliminary review only, the court assumes, without
deciding, that Mr. Porter fits within the Rule.
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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 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
Like his original complaint, Mr. Porter’s amended
complaint and attachments appear to lack a coherent narrative.
Mr. Porter alleges that United States Marshals arrested him in
Woburn, Massachusetts in July 2016 based on a fugitive from
justice warrant issued by the Candia, New Hampshire Police
Department. He further alleges that the target of the warrant
was actually a “Richard Porter” with a different middle name.
Mr. Porter also asserts that he was arrested in 2006 for trying
to evict an individual named Michael Thompson from a mobile home
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Mr. Porter owns in Candia and that police “shielded” Mr.
Thompson from prosecution.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a
complaint contain, among other things, “a short and plain
statement of the claim” showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To meet the minimum pleading
standard, a complaint need only give each defendant fair notice
of the claims against them as to allow them to mount a defense.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While a
detailed telling of facts is not required, “the complaint should
at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom,
when, where, and why[.]” Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v.
Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004). The court may
dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to comply with Rule
8(a)(2). See Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993).
Mr. Porter’s amended complaint, even construed liberally,
does not give “fair notice” of the claims against any
prospective defendant.
In addition, given that the events Mr. Porter describes
happened roughly twenty years ago, they are barred by the
statutes of limitation in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. See
Brophy v. Goslin, No. 25-CV-10269-ADB, 2026 WL 478180, at *2 (D.
Mass. Feb. 19, 2026) (applying Massachusetts’ three-year statute
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
of limitations to plaintiff’s state law and civil rights
claims); McNamara v. City of Nashua, 629 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir.
2011) (Applying New Hampshire’s three-year limitation period
under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4 to plaintiffs’ federal claims
and tort claims under New Hampshire law.).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Porter’s claims are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations. The District Judge should
therefore dismiss this case.
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.
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 9, 2026
cc: Triple P Ranch Realty Trust, pro se
Richard W. Porter, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4