Woodham v. Woodham et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grace Woodham
v. Case No. 23-cv-244-JL-AJ
Janet Woodham, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Grace Woodham, appearing in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint against, among others, her parents
and legal guardians, Janet Woodham and Robert Woodham,1 alleging
that the defendants,2 separately or together, committed numerous
state-law torts against her. Ms. Woodham’s complaint (Doc. No.
1) is before the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary
review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
1 Subsequent to the commencement of this lawsuit, the New
Hampshire Probate Court determined that Ms. Woodham is not
competent to initiate, defend or resolve litigation on her own
behalf. That court also appointed Janet and Robert Woodham as
her co-guardians. See Order Woodham v. Bridges, et al., No. 21-
cv-601-PB (D.N.H. May 22, 2024) (ECF No. 12).
2 The other defendants are Travis Garner and Ethan Garner of
Conway, New Hampshire; Richard Davidson; “Chris B”; several
“John Doe” defendants employed by NE Auto of North Conway, New
Hampshire; and “two citizens of Jamaica.”
Case 1:23-cv-00244-JL-AJ Document 27 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 6

2
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Ms. Woodham’s, that are 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.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation omitted). The court treats as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations, and construes reasonable inferences in
plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640
F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). An unrepresented plaintiff's
complaint must be read liberally in this regard, see Donovan v.
Maine, 276 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2002), but must still contain
“the crucial detail of who, what, when, where, and how” in order
to provide fair notice of what the claims are and the grounds
upon which they rest, Byrne v. Maryland, No. 1:20-cv-00036-GZS,
2020 WL 1317731, at *5, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48676, at *11 (D.
Case 1:23-cv-00244-JL-AJ Document 27 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 6

3
Me. Mar. 20, 2020), R&R approved, 2020 WL 2202441, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 79862 (D. Me. May 6, 2020).
Factual Allegations
Ms. Woodham alleges that, after she was arrested, her
parents trespassed onto her property, destroyed some of her
belongings and gave away others to their friends, who are also
defendants in this action. Ms. Woodham alleges that the
defendants’ actions constitute several common law torts,
including trover, trespassing and conversion.
Discussion
A. Protecting Ms. Woodham’s interests
As previously noted, a state court has found Ms. Woodham
incompetent to manage litigation on her own behalf, and
appointed Janet and Robert Woodham as her guardian. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2):
A minor or an incompetent person who does not have a
duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend
or by a guardian ad litem [“GAL”]. The court must
appoint a [GAL] – or issue another appropriate order –
to protect a minor or incompetent person who is
unrepresented . . . .
Rule 17(c)(2) requires “a district court to ‘take whatever
measures it deems proper to protect an incompetent person during
litigation.’” Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1311–12 (9th Cir.
2014) (citation omitted). More specifically, the court may
appoint a GAL for a person who already has a general guardian,
Case 1:23-cv-00244-JL-AJ Document 27 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 6

4
if it appears that the person’s interests may conflict with
those of the general guardian. See Developmental Disabilities
Advoc. Ctr., Inc. v. Melton, 689 F.2d 281, 285 (1st Cir. 1982).
Given that Ms. Woodham’s complaint asserts claims against
her guardians, as well as the court’s proposed disposition of
those claims, see infra, the court is persuaded that Ms.
Woodham’s interests may conflict with those of her guardians in
this case. Accordingly, in an Order issued this date, the court
directs the Clerk’s office to identify an attorney who is able
and willing to serve as a GAL, representing Ms. Woodham with
respect to her claims against the guardians, and who can be
appointed to serve as Ms. Woodham’s counsel for the limited
purpose of preparing and filing Ms. Woodham’s objection, if any,
to this Report and Recommendation recommending that the claims
in Ms. Woodham’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
B. Preliminary Review – Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’
possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute.’” Gun v.Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994)). The plaintiff has the burden to establish the court's
jurisdiction. Calderón–Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d
14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013).
Case 1:23-cv-00244-JL-AJ Document 27 Filed 10/02/24 Page 4 of 6

5
To invoke this court's subject matter jurisdiction,
plaintiff must allege either that this action raises a federal
question, in that the cause of action arises under federal law,
or that this court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and § 1332 (diversity).
To establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff must assert that
the parties are citizens of different states see id. at §
1332(a)(1), and that the amount in controversy in this action
exceeds $75,000. See id. at § 1332(b).
Ms. Woodham’s complaint asserts only state law claims
involving her personal property. Thus, as there is no federal
question raised in the complaint, the only basis upon which the
court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction is through
diversity. To establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff must
show that the parties are citizens of different states and that
the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. See Id. § 1332.
“[D]iversity jurisdiction requires ‘complete diversity of
citizenship as between all plaintiffs and all defendants.’ This
means that diversity jurisdiction does not exist where any
plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”
Alvarez–Torres v. Ryder Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 582 F.3d 47, 53–54
(1st Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Here, the face of the
complaint indicates that Ms. Woodham and several defendants are
Case 1:23-cv-00244-JL-AJ Document 27 Filed 10/02/24 Page 5 of 6

6
New Hampshire citizens. The complaint, therefore, fails to
properly invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case should be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to
being refiled in state court. Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within thirty days of the date that
the GAL – appointed pursuant to the court’s Order issued this
date – files a notice of appearance of counsel on behalf of Ms.
Woodham. The objection 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).
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
October 2, 2024
cc: Grace Woodham, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00244-JL-AJ Document 27 Filed 10/02/24 Page 6 of 6