Martin v. Northern NH Correctional Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Lee J. Martin
v. Case No. 24-cv-412-LM-AJ
Androscoggin Valley Hospital et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is self-represented Plaintiff Lee J. Marvin’s Complaint (Doc. No.
1), filed while he was incarcerated at the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility
(“NCF”) in Berlin, New Hampshire.2 The complaint is before this magistrate judge for
preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR 4.3(d)(1).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW STANDARD
The court conducts preliminary review of prisoner complaints under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a) and LR 4.3(d)(1) to determine, among other things, whether the complaint
states a claim upon which relief might be granted. In conducting its preliminary review,
the court must construe the complaint liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). To determine whether to
dismiss claims for failure to state a claim, the court takes as true the factual content in
the complaint and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, strips away legal
1 Plaintiff names the following defendants in his Complaint (Doc. No. 1):
Androscoggin Valley Hospital (“AVH”); AVH physician Dr. Moore, whose first name is
unknown; and Dartmouth Hospital.
2 According to the New Hampshire Department of Corrections Inmate Locator,
Mr. Martin is presently incarcerated at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men in
Concord, New Hampshire. See https://business.nh.gov/inmate_locator/ (last viewed
Nov. 3, 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00412-LM-AJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 6

2
conclusions, and considers whether the plaintiff has stated a claim. See Hernandez-
Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)). The court may dismiss claims asserted in a prisoner’s complaint if the
court lacks 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. § 1915A(b).
BACKGROUND
The court draws the following facts from Mr. Martin’s Complaint, liberally
construed. See Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. On November 1, 2024, while incarcerated at
NCF, Mr. Martin lost consciousness and was taken to Androscoggin Valley Hospital
(“AVH”) in Berlin, New Hampshire for medical care. At AVH, Mr. Martin was given a
CT-Scan. Mr. Martin alleges that an injection he received in connection with that CT-
scan caused him to “flatline[]” for more than a minute. Doc. No. 1, at 1. At some point,
Mr. Martin was transferred from AVH to Dartmouth Hospital (“DH”). DH was notified of
Mr. Martin’s reaction to the injection he received at AVH. Despite that, when DH
conducted another CT-scan, he was again injected in connection with that scan, and
again “flatlined for over (1) one minute, due to [their] error. . .” (spelling corrected). Id.
CLAIMS3
The court finds that, liberally construed, the Complaint asserts claims against
three defendants, AVH, AVH physician Dr. Moore, and DH, alleging that they
3 The claims identified in this Order will be considered to be the claims asserted
in this case for all purposes. If Mr. Martin disagrees with the identified claims, he must
object to this Report and Recommendation and/or move to amend his Complaint to
identify what claims he intends to assert in this matter.
Case 1:24-cv-00412-LM-AJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 6

3
endangered Mr. Martin’s life by subjecting him to substandard medical care, in violation
of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and state law. Mr. Martin
seeks punitive and compensatory damages and damages for future medical injury in
anticipation of “lifelong issues.” Id. at 1-2.
DISCUSSION
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“‘Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court's power to hear the case before it.
Federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning that they possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’” Boniface v. Viliena, 145 F.4th 98,
109 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013)); see also
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
The district courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction,
defined (within constitutional bounds) by federal statute. Congress has
granted those courts jurisdiction over two main kinds of cases. District
courts have power to decide diversity cases—suits between citizens of
different States as to any matter valued at more than $75,000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). And they have power to decide federal-question
cases—suits “arising under” federal law. § 1331.
Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 7 (2022) (internal citations omitted). The party
seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction bears the burden to establish that jurisdiction
exists. See Woo v. Spackman, 988 F.3d 47, 53 (1st Cir. 2021).
“Federal courts . . . cannot act in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Rotondo v. Salisbury, Nos. 24-1338, 24-1358, 24-1410, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26773,
at *5, 2024 WL 4529691, at *1 (1st Cir. July 10, 2024). Courts, therefore, “‘have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in
Case 1:24-cv-00412-LM-AJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 6

4
the absence of a challenge from any party.’” Boniface, 145 F.4th at 109 (citation
omitted). “And, if a federal court concludes that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, it
must dismiss the complaint.” Id.
II. Federal Question Jurisdiction
To the extent Mr. Martin seeks to bring damages claims in this case under this
Court’s federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, such claims arise under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. “[Section] 1983 allows private parties to sue state actors who violate
their rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Medina v. Planned
Parenthood S. Atl., 145 S. Ct. 2219, 2227 (2025) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Segrain v. Duffy, 118 F.4th 45, 56 (1st Cir. 2024) (“Section 1983
provides a cause of action for monetary damages against state actors sued in their
individual capacities who acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiff of a right
guaranteed by the Constitution or by federal law.”). To state a claim under § 1983, the
plaintiff must show that a state actor violated his rights secured by the Constitution or
federal law. See Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134, 141 (2022).
It is well-settled, however, that § 1983 does not generally provide a cause of
action for purely private conduct alleged to have impacted a plaintiff's federal
constitutional rights. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 53 (1992) (citing Polk Cty.
v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)). A private party is deemed to be a state actor for
purposes of § 1983 only under limited circumstances, none of which are present here.
See generally Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05 (1982) (describing
circumstances under which a private actor can be deemed to be a state actor for
purposes of § 1983).
Case 1:24-cv-00412-LM-AJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 6

5
AVH and DH are private entities, and Dr. Moore is a private individual. The fact
that Mr. Martin was incarcerated in a state prison at the time of the events underlying
his Complaint, does not alter that fact. Accordingly, to the extent Mr. Martin seeks to
bring claims against the defendants for violations of his rights under the Constitution or
federal law, his claims fail. Accordingly, the District Judge should dismiss the plaintiff's
§ 1983 claims for lack of jurisdiction.
II. State Law Claims
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
This Court may entertain claims asserted under state law if the matter falls within
this Court's diversity jurisdiction. To invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the Court, the
complaint must demonstrate that the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each of
the defendants, and that the suit involves an amount-in-controversy in excess of
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In this case, to the extent he seeks to assert a
medical malpractice or other negligence claim under state law, Mr. Martin cannot invoke
diversity jurisdiction, as he and at least one of the defendants are both citizens of New
Hampshire. The complaint therefore does not satisfy the requirements set forth in §
1332(a), and the district judge should dismiss Mr. Martin’s state law claims on that
basis, without prejudice to his ability to assert those claims in a suit brought in a state
court of competent jurisdiction.
B. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “in any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other
claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they
Case 1:24-cv-00412-LM-AJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 6

6
form part of the case or controversy.” Id. at § 1367(a). The district court may decline to
exercise jurisdiction, however, where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.” Id. at § 1367(c)(3). Because Mr. Martin has failed to state any
claim upon which relief might be granted which invokes this court’s original jurisdiction,
the district judge should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Mr.
Martin’s state law claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss this action in its
entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s ability to
bring his state law claims in state court. 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. Additionally, any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
November 4, 2025
cc: Lee J. Martin, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00412-LM-AJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 6