Bergeron v. NH, State of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael Joseph Bergeron, Jr.
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-526-SM
State of 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-00526-SM Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 3

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 and Analysis
Bergeron seeks “full annulment” of unspecified criminal
records.
To the extent Bergeron is seeking annulment of state court
convictions, the proper forum for such a request is the state
sentencing court. 	See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651:5, I.
While Bergeron also suggests that his rights under the
United States Constitution were also violated, his allegations
in this regard are vague and conclusory, and his complaint lacks
specific facts which underlie the claim he seeks to assert. 	His
complaint does not state sufficient facts which, if accepted as
true, would allow the court to reasonably infer that he has
asserted any colorable claim upon which relief might be granted.
See Hernandez-Cuevas, 723 F.3d at 102.
III. 	Conclusion
The district judge should dismiss this 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
Case 1:18-cv-00526-SM Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 2 of 3

3
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-00526-SM Document 8 Filed 12/03/18 Page 3 of 3