Porter v. Framingham, MA, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard W. Porter
v. 	Case No. 25-cv-526-LM-AJ
City of Framingham
Framingham Police Dept.
James McDermott
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Richard W. Porter, appearing in
forma pauperis, filed a complaint (Doc. No 1) against the City
of Framingham, Massachusetts, its police department, and James
McDermott. The complaint is before the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for preliminary review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	As explained more fully below, this case
should be dismissed because venue is improper in this District.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Porter’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
Case 1:25-cv-00526-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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 (D. Me. Mar. 20, 2020) (rec. dec.),
aff'd, 2020 WL 2202441 (D. Me. May 6, 2020).
Background
Mr. Porter’s complaint consists of a single, handwritten
page that is difficult to follow. He alleges that he built a
modular home in Framingham in 1995. Over the next thirty years,
Framingham Police filed fourteen criminal charges against him
and arrested him several times. He alleges that his home has
been broken into and sold five times. In 2022, Mr. McDermott
bought the home after breaking into it.
Case 1:25-cv-00526-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Analysis
The facts alleged in Mr. Porter’s complaint, though sparse,
raise the issue of whether venue is appropriate in this court.1
Under federal venue law, a civil action may only be brought in
“a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
located,” or in “a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or
a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). The complaint asserts
no defendant’s or claim's connection to New Hampshire. The
property at issue is in Massachusetts as were the legal
proceedings alleged in the complaint. Finally, the allegation
that Mr. McDermott lives in the subject home suggests that he is
a Massachusetts resident. Absent any incidents, parties, or
claims that would satisfy federal venue requirements, venue
cannot lie in this District. The district judge should therefore
dismiss the complaint for lack of proper venue, pursuant to 28
1 Where the defense of improper venue is “‘obvious from the
face of the complaint and no further factual record is required
to be developed,’” the court may, sua sponte, dismiss the case.
Cox v. Rushie, No. CA 13-11308-PBS, 2013 WL 3197655 at *4 (D.
Mass. June 18, 2013) (quoting Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d
1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006)); see also Wilkinson v. Sec'y, Fla.
Dep't of Corr., 622 F. App'x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2015).
Case 1:25-cv-00526-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
U.S.C. § 1406(a), without prejudice to Mr. Porter’s ability to
bring his suit in a proper venue.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this action due to improper venue. 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.
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 6, 2026
cc: Richard W. Porter, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-00526-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 4