Lewis v. Chief Justice of NH Judicial Branch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Allan Lewis
v. Civ. No. 26-cv-239-JL-AJ
Gordon J. MacDonald
Chief Justice of the
NH Supreme Court
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Allan Lewis has sued New
Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. See
Compl. (Doc. No. 1). The complaint is before the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review, pursuant to LR
4.3(d)(3), to determine whether it properly invokes the subject
matter jurisdiction of the Court. See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the case.”).
Preliminary Review Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed
by pro se litigants who have paid the filing fee to determine
whether the complaint properly invokes the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. See LR 4.3(d)(2); Fe3d. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). In conducting this review, the court construes the
pleading liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
Case 1:26-cv-00239-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(2007) (per curiam). The court also accepts as true all well-
pled factual allegations in a plaintiff's complaint and indulges
all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Katz v.
Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64, 70 (1st Cir. 2012). The Court may
dismiss claims, sua sponte, if it finds that it does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. See LR 4.3(d)(2);
Cebollero-Bertran v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 4 F.4th 63, 71
(1st Cir. 2021).
Factual Background
Mr. Lewis’s complaint stems from adverse results in two
declaratory judgment cases in Strafford County (N.H.) Superior
Court: Lewis v. Briar Ridge Estates, No. 219-2020-CV-00065 (filed Feb.
10, 2020) (“the 2020 case”); Lewis v. NBV-Brier Ridge LLC, No. 219-
2024-CV-0067 (filed Feb. 20, 2024) (“the 2024 case”). In both cases,
Mr. Lewis sued the owners or operators of a mobile home park, from
which he claimed to have been illegally evicted. Mr. Lewis was
unsuccessful in both cases, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court
affirmed both adverse decisions. See Lewis v. Briar Ridge Estates,
Case. No. 2021-0514 (N.H. Sept. 16, 2022); Lewis v. NBV-Briar Ridge,
LLC, Case No. 2025-0138 (N.H. July 17, 2025).
The gist of Mr. Lewis’s present complaint is that Chief Justice
MacDonald failed to enforce New Hampshire law which, he asserts,
should have prevented landlord-tenant issues from being heard in
Case 1:26-cv-00239-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Superior Court.1 See, e.g., Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 6 (“The Complaint
alleges that Chief Justice MacDonald . . . can be held liable for the
Damages that were caused as a Direct Result of his Negligence in Not
ensuring that the Judicial Process from the Superior Court Division
Complies with the Rule of Law.”) (capitalization in original). He
seeks $1 million in damages, a finding that Chief Justice MacDonald
was “negligent in his . . . duty to ensure the integrity to the rules
of the Superior Court . . .”[,] and a finding that the case must be
remanded to the Rochester District Court Landlord/Tenant Division . .
. .” Id. at 11.
Discussion
A. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine2
The allegations in Mr. Lewis’s complaint bring this case
squarely within the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine preserves the [United States] Supreme
Court's exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from final state-
court judgments by divesting lower federal courts of
jurisdiction to hear certain cases brought by parties who have
lost in state court[.]” Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust
1 The court recently provided a more complete description of
the underlying dispute in a Report and Recommendation issued in
a different lawsuit Mr. Lewis brought in this court. See Lewis
v. N.H. Superior Court Chief Justice, Civ. No. 25-cv-9-LM-AJ,
(D.N.H. Report and Recommendation issued Apr. 27, 2026).
2 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine takes its name from two
Supreme Court cases: Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)
and D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
Case 1:26-cv-00239-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Co., 907 F.3d 61, 64 (1st Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). The doctrine applies “where ‘the losing
party in state court filed suit in federal court after the state
proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the state-
court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that
judgment.’” Federación de Maestros de P.R. v. Junta de
Relaciones del Trabajo de P.R., 410 F.3d 17, 23-24 (1st Cir.
2005) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280, 291 (2005)). Thus, “if federal litigation is
initiated after state proceedings have ended, and the plaintiff
implicitly or explicitly seek[s] review and rejection of [the
state] judgment, then a federal suit seeking an opposite result
is an impermissible attempt to appeal the state judgment to the
lower federal courts, and, under Rooker-Feldman, the federal
courts lack jurisdiction.” Id. at 24 (emphasis and alterations
in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Mr. Lewis explicitly and indisputably seeks to “review and
reject” the state court judgments described above. In addition,
this case was commenced on March 30, 2026, well after the
conclusion of the state court cases. Accordingly, Mr. Lewis’s
exclusive path to relief from the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s
rulings was an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Therefore, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
claims asserted against Chief Justice MacDonald.
Case 1:26-cv-00239-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this case because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over Mr. Lewis’s claims.
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.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 6, 2026
cc: Allan Lewis, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00239-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 5 of 5