Brodeur v. NH, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Brodeur
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-959-PB
State of New Hampshire and
Lonnie McCaffrey, Prosecutor
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Christopher Brodeur has filed a Complaint
(Doc. No. 1), asserting that he is homeless and disabled; that
he has been the target of illegal evictions, police misconduct,
false arrests, and detention; and that he has suffered
violations of his civil rights and his right to a fair trial in
criminal cases. 	Mr. Brodeur filed this case without paying the
filing fee and without filling out and filing the application to
proceed in forma pauperis that this court’s clerk’s office
mailed to him.
The complaint alleges that Mr. Brodeur is eligible for in
forma pauperis status. 	Mr. Brodeur’s signature on the complaint
is prefaced by a declaration under penalty of perjury that the
matters alleged in the complaint are “true & provable.” 	Doc.
No. 1. 	Assuming, without deciding, that the averments in Mr.
Brodeur’s complaint regarding his financial eligibility are
sufficient to allow this court to waive the filing fee, this
court subjects the complaint to preliminary review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
Case 1:20-cv-00959-PB Document 5 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 5

2
Standard
This court subjects complaints filed in forma pauperis to
preliminary review under LR 4.3(d)(2) and may dismiss complaints
that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or
that seek damages from defendants who are immune from such
relief. 	See id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	The court
construes pro se complaints liberally in conducting that
preliminary review. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). 	Disregarding any legal conclusions, the court considers
whether the factual content in the complaint and inferences
reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a facially
plausible claim to relief. 	Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d
91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)).
Discussion
Mr. Brodeur has alleged myriad facts regarding private
parties, his criminal defense attorney, the state courts, the
Governor, federal judges, prosecutors, and the Raymond Police
Department. 	He has named only two defendants, however: 	the
State of New Hampshire and a police prosecutor, Attorney Lonnie
McCaffrey.
The State is not a proper defendant to any claim in this
case. 	The Eleventh Amendment shields states from lawsuits like
Mr. Brodeur’s, naming the State, state agencies, or state
Case 1:20-cv-00959-PB Document 5 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 5

3
officers in their official capacities, as defendants. 	Davidson
v. Howe, 749 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2014). 	The district judge
should dismiss all of Mr. Brodeur’s claims against the State as
barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the State should be
dropped as a party.
Mr. Brodeur’s claims against Attorney Lonnie McCaffrey are
also not viable. 	Absolute prosecutorial immunity shields state
actors from civil liability for engaging in “prosecutorial
actions that are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase
of the criminal process.’” 	Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S.
335, 341 (2009) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430
(1976)); see also Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 130 (1997)
(absolute prosecutorial immunity shielded prosecutor’s conduct
in preparing and filing charging document from claims for
damages under section 1983). 	Mr. Brodeur has alleged that
Attorney McCaffrey took steps, alone or in concert with the
state court judge and his criminal defense attorney, after his
speedy trial rights had attached, which caused his criminal
trials to be delayed indefinitely. 	Such allegations concerning
the prosecutor’s conduct undertaken during the judicial phase of
his criminal cases falls within the scope of absolute
prosecutorial immunity. 	The claims arising from such
allegations are properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss Mr. Brodeur’s
Case 1:20-cv-00959-PB Document 5 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 5

4
claims against Attorney McCaffrey, and Attorney McCaffrey should
be terminated as a defendant.
There are no other individuals or entities named as
defendants in the complaint. 	Declining to construe the instant
complaint as intending to state claims against individuals or
agencies that Mr. Brodeur has not named as defendants, the
district judge should dismiss this action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).1
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). 	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 objections within the specified time waives the right to
1 The outside of the envelope that Mr. Brodeur used to mail
the original complaint to the court includes a handwritten note
stating that the “Raymond Police illegally stole/broke my music
instruments” and “helped illegally evict me despite the
Governor’s Emergency Order,” Doc. No. 1-1. 	Those statements
echo assertions in the complaint regarding Mr. Brodeur’s
eviction and the termination of his Wi-Fi access in March 2020,
which do not appear to give rise to claims against the named
defendants. 	This court expresses no opinion as to whether
plaintiff could file a new complaint in an appropriate forum
stating claims under federal or state law, regarding the
mishandling of his musical instruments and his eviction, naming
appropriate individuals or entities as defendants.
Case 1:20-cv-00959-PB Document 5 Filed 05/03/21 Page 4 of 5

5
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
May 3, 2021
cc: 	Christopher Brodeur, pro se
Case 1:20-cv-00959-PB Document 5 Filed 05/03/21 Page 5 of 5