Bergeron v. Seabrook, NH, Town of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael Joseph Bergeron, Jr.
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-578-JD
Town of Seabrook, New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Joseph Bergeron, Jr., proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a Complaint, doc. No. 1, that is before this
court for preliminary review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. 	Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings 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 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. 	Hernandez-Cuevas
Case 1:18-cv-00578-JD Document 9 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 5

2
v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
II. 	Background
Bergeron states that in November 2009, members of the
Seabrook, New Hampshire police department "breached [their]
duty" and left him disabled. 	Bergeron seeks damages from the
Town of Seabrook.
III. 	Discussion
The court construes Bergeron’s claim for damages as
intending to be asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
authorizes claims for relief filed by plaintiffs alleging that a
defendant acting under color of state law violated their federal
rights. 	As explained below, several reasons support dismissal
of this complaint.
A. 	Rooker-Feldman doctrine
It appears from Bergeron’s complaint that a state court
lawsuit stemming from the breach alleged here was dismissed
based on the statute of limitations. 	To the extent that
Bergeron is asking this court to overturn the state court’s
decision, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the court from
doing so.
Case 1:18-cv-00578-JD Document 9 Filed 12/03/18 Page 2 of 5

3
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that, as a general rule
subject to exceptions not relevant here, lower federal courts
cannot review and reverse prior state court judgments. 	See D.C.
Ct. App. V. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr.
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr.
Co., No. 17-1916, 2018 WL 5094793, at *2 (1st Cir. Oct. 19,
2018). 	The Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests this court of
jurisdiction over cases brought by parties that lost in state
court, complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments
rendered before the federal court proceedings commenced, and
“inviting district court review and rejection of [the state
court’s] judgments.” 	Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532
(2011) (quoting Exxon v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
284 (2005)). 	The doctrine is applicable here. 	Therefore, to
the extent Bergeron seeks reversal of a state court decision,
his claim should be dismissed.
B. 	Statute of limitations
Relatedly, even if the issue had not been already decided,
it is apparent from his complaint that his claim is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.
The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims arising out of
events occurring in New Hampshire is three years. 	See Gorelik
v. Costin, 605 F.3d 118, 121 (1st Cir. 2010); see also N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 508:4. 	Bergeron alleges that defendants violated
Case 1:18-cv-00578-JD Document 9 Filed 12/03/18 Page 3 of 5

4
his rights in November 2009. 	The three-year limitations period
for filing suit concerning that occurrence expired in November
2012, long before Bergeron filed this suit in 2018. 	Nothing in
the complaint suggests that the limitations period should be
tolled to allow the court to deem it timely filed. 	Accordingly,
the statute of limitations bars Bergeron’s claim.
C. 	Sufficiency of the allegations
Plaintiff's allegations are also vague and conclusory, and
lack any specific facts or description of the conduct that
underlies the claim Bergeron seeks to assert. 	As previously
noted, Bergeron asserts only that the defendant breached a duty
and caused him damage.
Under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91
(1978), “[l]ocal governing bodies . . . can be sued directly
under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief”
for alleged constitutional violations arising from “a policy
statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted
and promulgated by that body's officers.” Id.; see also Connick
v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011). 	Municipal liability can be
asserted “where the municipality itself causes the
constitutional violation at issue.” 	Santiago v. Fenton, 891
F.2d 373, 381 (1st Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)). 	Here,
Case 1:18-cv-00578-JD Document 9 Filed 12/03/18 Page 4 of 5

5
there is no allegation of any policy or how that policy was the
moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation.
Accordingly, the complaint does not state sufficient facts
which, accepted as true, would allow the court to reasonably
infer that plaintiff has asserted any colorable claim upon which
relief might be granted. 	See Hernandez-Cuevas, 723 F.3d at 102.
IV. 	Conclusion
The district judge should dismiss this civil rights action,
in its entirety, based on the issues discussed herein. 	Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within 14 days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); LR 7.2(d). 	The 14-day period may be extended upon
motion. 	Failure to file 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
December 3, 2018
cc: 	Michael Joseph Bergeron, Jr., pro se
Case 1:18-cv-00578-JD Document 9 Filed 12/03/18 Page 5 of 5