Alexander v. Hill-Kearse et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JOSEPH ALEXANDER
v. Civil No. 26-cv-072-JL-AJ
DAWN HILL-KEARSE AND
SERGIO JIMENEZ
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Joseph Alexander, proceeding pro se without counsel, filed a Complaint (Doc.
No. 1) in forma pauperis in this court, asserting that Defendants conspired together and
intentionally delayed the calendaring of motions in violation of due process. The Complaint is
before the court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2), the
court construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). The court may dismiss claims if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant
is immune from the relief sought, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief might be
granted, or the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). To
determine if a pleading states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court takes as true the
facts asserted in the Complaint, and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, strips away
the legal conclusions, and considers whether the complaint states a claim that is plausible on its
face. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Discussion
Stripped of legal conclusions regarding violations of due process and a conspiracy, the
Case 1:26-cv-00072-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Complaint asserts that Defendants, Sergio Jimenez and Dawn Hill-Kearse, delayed the
scheduling of motions. Plaintiff, with an out-of-state return-address, has not asserted any facts
indicating that this case bears any connection to New Hampshire or that matters described in the
Complaint affected his own rights in any way. The allegations in the Complaint fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, more than thirty federal judicial
districts docketed the same Complaint filed by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendants.
Without undertaking a comprehensive assessment of how each of those courts handled
Alexander’s Complaint in the days that have passed since the courts docketed the same case, this
court notes that several courts have dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. See, e.g.,
Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, No. 2:26-cv-02040-HLT-BGS (D. Kan. Jan. 28, 2026) (“The
complaint is just a conclusory allegation about a conspiracy to delay the ‘calendar of
motions.’ . . . . Although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, the Court cannot construct
them out of whole cloth.”).
The court in the District of Wyoming dismissed a set of similar Complaints upon
preliminary review, noting that those Complaint did not state a claim for relief as they failed to
allege sufficient facts showing who did what. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Pacheco, No. 2:26-cv-00033-
ABJ (D. Wyo. Jan. 28, 2025). That court found that the pattern of similar filings within that
district suggested the cases could be dismissed as frivolous or malicious:
The Court has become aware of substantially similar complaints in the last month.
See Adams v. Jimenez, No. 26-cv-24-KHR (D. Wyo. Jan. 22, 2026) (claiming
Sergio Jimenez "conspired with others in violation of due process"); Williams v.
Jimenez, No. 26-cv-13-KHR (D. Wyo. Jan 13, 2026) (claiming Sergio Jimenez
and Dawn Hill-Kearse allegedly "conspired . . . in violation of due process") . . . .
It is increasingly obvious these cases were filed by one person or a group of
Case 1:26-cv-00072-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
people using aliases. As the Court noted in Adams, these filings appear to harass
rather than initiate legitimate litigation. Adams, No. 26-cv-24-KHR at *4.
Id.
The Complaint here is identical to pleadings other courts have deemed to be frivolous or
malicious or to fail to state a claim. Dismissing this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for
those reasons is appropriate.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
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 objection period may be extended upon motion.
Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’”
and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
_________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 9, 2026
cc: Joseph Alexander, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00072-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3