Hassell v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Child Support Services et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Matthew-Lane Hassell
v. Civ. No. 25-cv-550-LM-AJ
NH Dept. of Health and Human Services,
Bureau of Child Support Services
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Matthew-Lane Hassell, the
petitioner in a state-court domestic relations matter,1 has sued
a New Hampshire state agency and several agency officials,
claiming that their efforts to enforce his child-support
obligations violate his state and federal constitutional and
statutory rights. Presently before the court for a recommended
disposition is Mr. Hassell’s motion for preliminary injunction,
(Doc. Nos. 2, 5), in which he asks this court to enjoin the
defendants “from undertaking or continuing any enforcement
actions . . . .” Id. at 9-10.2 As explained in more detail below,
the district judge should deny the motion for injunctive relief.
1 See Hassell v. Kimbark, Case No. 656-2022-DM-737 (10th
Circ. – Fam. Div. – Derry, filed Nov. 14, 2022).
2 Mr. Hassell first filed a motion for injunctive relief on
December 29, 2025 (Doc. No. 2). After that motion was denied
without prejudice, he renewed in on January 5, 2026 (Doc. No.
5). The court’s February 12, 2026 Order (Doc. No. 12) details
the procedural history of this case, which includes the denial
of two motions for a temporary restraining order, but without
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 7

2
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hassell alleges that the New Hampshire Department of
Motor Vehicles has suspended his driver’s license at the request
of the Bureau of Child Support Services (“BCSS”) because of the
arrearages in support payments, and that BCSS threatened to
report the arrearages to a credit bureau. Pltf. Mot. (Doc. No.
5) ¶¶ 8-9. He argues that this enforcement action violates his
rights for two reasons. First, he asserts that enforcement of
his child-support obligations is improper because the state-
court proceedings are stayed, pending resolution of Mr.
Hassell’s appeal from an adverse decision in this court in an
earlier case. Id. ¶ 1. Second, he argues that his request for
supervisory review of the license suspension barred BCCS from
enforcing his child-support obligation. Id. ¶¶ 6-10.
DISCUSSION
“‘A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.’” Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660, 666
(1st Cir. 2025)(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). “In determining whether to grant a
preliminary injunction, the district court must consider: (i)
the movant's likelihood of success on the merits of its claims;
(ii) whether and to what extent the movant will suffer
prejudice to the court considering Mr. Hassell’s alternate
request for a preliminary injunction.
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 7

3
irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld; (iii) the
balance of hardships as between the parties; and (iv) the
effect, if any, that an injunction (or the withholding of one)
may have on the public interest.” Id. (quotations omitted). “The
first of these factors is a necessary condition: If the movant
fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the
remaining elements are of little consequence.” Id. (quotations
omitted). “[A] court's conclusions as to the merits of the
issues presented on preliminary injunction are to be understood
as statements of probable outcomes.” Id. (quotations omitted).
When, as here, the defendants are government entities or
officials sued in their official capacities, the balance of
equities and public interest factors merge. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n-
New Hampshire v. NH Att'y Gen., 806 F. Supp. 3d 166, 181 (D.N.H.
2025) (citing Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20, 37 (1st Cir.
2021)).
A. Stay of State Court Proceedings
While Mr. Hassell correctly notes that the state court
issued a stay of the Family Division proceedings pending the
resolution of his appeal to the First Circuit, the stay order
also contains the following language: “All prior orders shall
remain in place.” See Nov. 29, 2023 Order (Doc. No. 16-2). Mr.
Hassell’s omission of this critical language is not well taken
by the court. More importantly, it reduces Mr. Hassell’s
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 7

4
likelihood of success on the merits of his stay-based claim to
almost zero, as he fails to provide any rationale as to how “all
prior orders” would exclude his child-support obligations.
Accordingly, as the remaining required elements for an
injunction “are of little consequence,” Capen, 134 F.4th at 666,
the request for an injunction based on the state court stay
should be denied.
B. Request for Supervisory Review
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The notice Mr. Hassell received regarding supervisory
review states that if a review is properly requested, “[n]o
action will be taken by BCSS until the Supervisory Review has
been completed.” Compl., Att. A (Doc. No. 1-3) at 39.3 The
notice, however, also includes a caveat to invoking this
provision. Specifically, supervisory review is limited to
“whether a mistake of fact has been made. Id. at 39.
The defendants do not dispute that Mr. Hassell timely filed
a request for supervisory review. Def. Mem. (Doc. No. 17) at 4.
Instead, the defendants argue that the request contested legal,
rather than factual, issues. Id. After reviewing Mr. Hassell’s
request, Compl. Att. 1 (Doc. 1-3) at 8-27, the court agrees.
3 The Notice indicates that the support order at issue
required Mr. Hassell to pay $217 per week, and that, as of
November 12, 2025, he had accumulated in excess of $8,777 in
arrearages. Compl., Att. A (Doc. No. 1-3) at 37.
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Mr. Hassell’s supervisory review request asserted, among
other things, violations of the New Hampshire Constitution, id.
at 11-12, 15, jurisdiction and venue defects, id. at 13-14, and
due process violations, id. at 15. None of these allegations fit
within the Notice’s requirement of “mistakes of fact.” Instead,
they are more properly characterized as legal arguments aimed at
reversing or vacating prior Family Court orders.4 Accordingly,
the court finds that Mr. Hassell has failed to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits of this claim. As this claim
is not as clear-cut as the one based on the stay of proceedings,
the court will address the remaining injunction elements.
2. Irreparable Harm
In addition to the failure to demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits, Mr. Hassell has also failed to
demonstrate irreparable harm. As the court found in its denial
of his TRO requests, “any injury resulting from the license
suspension or credit reporting can be compensated, if those
decisions are reversed, either though administrative procedures
or court order.” January 9, 2026 Order (Doc. No. 6), at 2. See
4 The court notes that the relief Mr. Hassell requested in
his review request were all legal in nature: closing the case as
unenforceable; correcting agency records to reflect
jurisdictional and constitutional violations, his lack of
consent to regulations regarding child-support enforcement, and
his request for “Public Officer Bonds” from the Judges and other
officials involved in the child-support process. Compl. Att. 1
(Doc. No. 1-3) at 30-35.
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Together Emps. v. Mass Gen. Brigham Inc., 19 F.4th 1, 8 (1st
Cir. 2021) (denying injunctive relief where “[m]oney damages
would adequately resolve all of the alleged harms.”). In
addition, other courts to consider this issue have made similar
rulings. See, e.g., Bellinsky v. Weiser, No. 25-CV-02062-PAB-
STV, 2025 WL 3018786, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 29, 2025) (where
plaintiff’s license was suspended for failing to pay child
support, court denied injunction absent a “significant risk that
he . . . will experience harm that cannot be compensated after
the fact by monetary damages.”) (cleaned up).
3. Balance of Harms/Public Interest
As previously noted, because the defendants are government
entities or officials, the balance of equities and public
interest factors merge. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n-New Hampshire, 806 F.
Supp. 3d at 181. This case stems from an attempt to enforce a
child support order. In general, “[s]tates have important
interests in enforcing the orders of their courts. Brochu v.
Foley, No. 21-CV-384-JD, 2021 WL 2109659, at *3 (D.N.H. May 25,
2021) (citing Sirva Relocation, LLC v. Richie, 794 F.3d 185, 196
(1st Cir. 2015). And more specifically, “there can be no question
that issues of parental rights and child support obligations
implicate important state interests.” Id. (citing Nicolosi v.
N.H. Supreme Court, No. 19-cv-1142-PB, 2019 WL 7039620, at *4
(D.N.H. Nov. 13, 2019), report and recommendation adopted sub
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 6 of 7

7
nom. Nicolosi v. Hicks, No. 19-CV-1142-PB, 2019 WL 7037666
(D.N.H. Dec. 19, 2019)). Therefore, the court finds that this
factor does not support injunctive relief.
As Mr. Hassell has failed to meet any of the requirements
for injunctive relief based on his supervisory review request,
that claim should be denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hassell’s motion for
preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 2, 5) should be denied. 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 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
March 24, 2026
cc: Matthew-Lane Hassell, pro se
Counsel of Record.
Case 1:25-cv-00550-LM-AJ Document 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 7 of 7