LEWIS MASTER FILE v. All Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Allan Lewis
v. 	Case No. 10-mc-94-PB
New Hampshire Judicial Branch,
Harvey Industries, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Allan Lewis’s “Motion
for a Hearing before this Honorable Court to Have the
[Permanent] Injunction Placed on Him by this Honorable Court
Removed” (Doc. No. 29). 	The motion seeks to lift the injunction
that placed a permanent filing restriction on Lewis on December
6, 2010, in Lewis v. N.H. Jud. Branch, No. 10-cv-231-PB
(D.N.H.), which is part of the record here. 	See Dec. 6, 2010
Order (Doc. No. 1-1) (approving Nov. 23, 2010 R&R (Doc. No. 1)).
The First Circuit affirmed that permanent filing restriction,
finding it to be appropriately issued and properly tailored.
See Lewis v. N.H. Jud. Branch, No. 11-1028 (1st Cir. Mar. 21,
2011).
The filing restriction limits Lewis’s ability to file
claims against a list of defendants, including the “New
Hampshire Judicial Branch,” named in the caption of Lewis’s
motion, see Doc. No. 29, unless Lewis first seeks leave of
Case 1:10-mc-00094-PB Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 3

2
court. 	To seek leave, Lewis must file a motion with a copy of
the proposed complaint, and an affidavit certifying that his
claims are “novel,” that they have not previously been raised in
his federal cases, and that they do not relate to Lewis v.
Harvey Indus., No. 04-C-143 (N.H. Super. Ct., Strafford Cty.),
or other state court matters concerning that case.
Lewis argues here that the filing restriction must be
lifted so he can file or reopen federal cases against defendants
regarding whether his rights were violated when the state court
held a bench trial in Harvey Indus., in lieu of a jury trial.
Lewis asserts here that his claims are not time-barred, and that
the state court record provides all the evidence he needs to
prove his claims.
Lewis’s reasons for lifting the injunction are not
compelling. 	Lewis’s practice of seeking to relitigate federal
cases asserting similar issues in the face of multiple adverse
decisions, based on res judicata, the statute of limitations,
Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial immunity, and the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, is the central reason why this court found
such litigation to be vexatious and issued the filing
restriction Lewis now seeks to lift. 	See generally Nov. 23,
2010 R&R (Doc. No. 1), R&R approved by Dec. 6, 2010 Order (Doc.
No. 1-1), aff’d, sub nom. Lewis v. N.H. Jud. Branch, No. 11-1028
(1st Cir. Mar. 21, 2011).
Case 1:10-mc-00094-PB Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 2 of 3

3
Lewis has offered no grounds upon which to base a reasoned
decision to lift that injunction. 	Therefore, the motion for a
hearing and to lift the permanent filing restriction (Doc. No.
29) should be denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a hearing,
seeking to lift the permanent filing restriction (Doc. No. 29),
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); LR 7.2(d). 	The
fourteen-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
April 19, 2019
cc: 	Allan Lewis, pro se
Case 1:10-mc-00094-PB Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 3 of 3