The Deerfield Road Realty Trust et al v. Allenstown, NH, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard W. Porter
Deerfield Road Realty Trust
v. Civ. No. 25-cv-528-SE-AJ
Town of Allenstown, NH, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 3, 2026, the court granted self-represented
plaintiff Richard Porter leave to amend his complaint to correct
several legal deficiencies identified in the order to amend.
(Doc. No. 3). Mr. Porter having timely responded, his Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 4) is before the undersigned magistrate
judge for preliminary review.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2). As explained more fully below, the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Porter’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
1 Mr. Porter has attached several documents to his Amended
Complaint, including an affidavit. (Doc. No. 4-1). The court is
taking all of Mr. Porter’s filings into consideration in its
analysis.
Case 1:25-cv-00528-SE-AJ Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 5

2
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
Mr. Porter’s Amended Complaint is disorganized and
difficult to follow. He appears to assert that defendants David
and Carol St. Onge are illegally living in a home in Allenstown,
New Hampshire that he, or a trust of which he is a trustee,
owns. He further alleges that the Town of Allenstown is
“shielding” the St. Onges from legal repercussions and instead
threatening to arrest him. Finally, Mr. Porter alleges that in
September 2024, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge ordered the
St. Onges to vacate the home, pay him “25 years of back rent and
Case 1:25-cv-00528-SE-AJ Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 5

3
further ordered the Allenstown police to leave [him] alone.” 2
Nevertheless, the St. Onges remain in the home.3
Analysis
The only discernable claim in the Amended Complaint is that
the defendants have failed to comply with a New Hampshire
Superior Court order. It is not, however, “the function of this
Court to enforce state court orders.” LeBlanc v. Rhode Island,
No. CA 11-101 M, 2011 WL 7099502, at *9 (D.R.I. Dec. 21, 2011),
report and recommendation adopted sub nom. LeBlanc v. Wall, No.
CA 11-101-M, 2012 WL 244383 (D.R.I. Jan. 25, 2012)) (citing
Beaudoin v. Michigan Racing Inc., 30 Fed. Appx. 575, 576 (6th
Cir. 2002) (noting that “the appropriate recourse available to
[the plaintiff], for the alleged violations of the state court's
order, was to advise the state court of the alleged violations
and to pursue the matter in the [state] courts”)); Bartlett v.
2 Mr. Porter did not provide a copy of the order he
describes, nor can the court locate it. State court dockets from
three cases Mr. Porter filed against the St. Onges show that
each was dismissed, and that none appear to have resulted in the
type of order that Mr. Porter describes.
3 The court notes that since October 3, 2023, Mr. Porter has
filed numerous lawsuits in the District of Massachusetts in
which he claimed that individuals are unlawfully occupying and
claiming ownership of properties of which he is the true owner,
including at least two that reference the same Allenstown
property as in this suit. See R. William Porter Enters. Corp. v.
Roy, No. CV 24-40034-DHH, 2024 WL 6047391, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar.
14, 2024) (and cases listed therein). All were dismissed either
as frivolous or due to improper venue.
Case 1:25-cv-00528-SE-AJ Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Wells, No. EDCV 07–00546 SGL (JCRx), 2008 WL 4390151, at *3
(C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008)(noting “impropriety of having a
federal court enforce a state court's orders”); see also Rivera
v. Comm'r of Dep't of Corr., No. 3:20-CV-1333 (SRU), 2021 WL
293254, at *6 (D. Conn. Jan. 27, 2021) (holding that plaintiff
“must seek enforcement of state court orders in state court.”).
Accordingly, this case should be dismissed without
prejudice to Mr. Porter’s ability to seek relief in state court.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4) without prejudice to Mr.
Porter’s ability to seek relief in state court for the
defendants’ alleged violation of state court orders.
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
Case 1:25-cv-00528-SE-AJ Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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
April 24, 2026
cc: Richard W. Porter, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-00528-SE-AJ Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 5