Ramsey v. State of NH Law Enforcement Cult et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Guy Ramsey
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-402-SM
State of New Hampshire Law
Enforcement Cult et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is plaintiff Guy Ramsey’s complaint (Doc.
No. 1), which was filed by Mr. Ramsey in forma pauperis while
incarcerated at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men (“NHSP”).
This matter is here for preliminary review, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and LR 4.3(d)(1).
Preliminary Review Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of prisoner
complaints filed by inmates seeking relief from government
agents. 	See LR 4.3(d)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	In
considering whether the complaint states a claim, the court
determines whether, stripped of legal conclusions, and with all
reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff’s favor, the
complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
1 Defendants, in addition to the “State of New Hampshire Law
Enforcement Cult,” are former New Hampshire Attorney General
Gordon MacDonald and current or former New Hampshire Supreme
Court Justices Hick, Bassett, Hantz Marcone, and Donovan.
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 7

2
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Claims may be dismissed, sua sponte, if 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. § 1915A(b); LR 4.3(d)(1)(A).
Background
Mr. Ramsey was convicted in 2014 of one count of aggravated
felonious sexual assault. 	He filed a direct appeal of his
conviction, which he withdrew.
In 2020, Mr. Ramsey filed a motion for a new trial in
Superior Court, asserting his innocence. 	He sought to have
“scopolamine” or “truth serum” administered to him, and to have
the statements he expected to utter under the influence of that
substance admitted as exculpatory evidence in a new trial. 	The
Superior Court denied that motion, and the New Hampshire Supreme
Court (“NHSC”) declined to accept Mr. Ramsey’s appeal of that
order.
Mr. Ramsey further alleges that he has been subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the NHSP. 	In
particular, in 2021, he asked to receive “earned time credit”
for religious correspondence courses he had taken and degrees he
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 7

3
had received through the auspices of the Universal Life Church.
Prison officials initially denied that request, concluding that
the Universal Life Church was not an accredited educational
institution. 	But when Mr. Ramsey grieved that decision, New
Hampshire Department of Corrections Commissioner Helen Hanks
instructed him to resubmit his request so that she might
reconsider awarding him earned time credits for “other”
rehabilitative programming.
Construed liberally, Mr. Ramsey’s complaint seeks relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for what he claims to be the state
courts’ denial of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process,
manifested in the denial of his motion for a new trial, in the
NHSC’s declining his discretionary appeal, and in his
imprisonment despite his claim of innocence. 	In addition, Mr.
Ramsey is seeking relief concerning his request for “earned time
credits” based on his Universal Life Church courses and
credentials.
Discussion
I. 	Eleventh Amendment and Official Capacity Claims
The Eleventh Amendment precludes suits for damages against
state employees sued in their official capacities. 	See Davidson
v. Howe, 749 F.3d 21, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2014). 	Accordingly, the
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 7

4
district judge should dismiss all of Mr. Ramsey’s claims for
damages, to the extent that they may be asserted against any
defendant in his or her official capacity.
II. 	Absolute Judicial Immunity
Mr. Ramsey’s claims against the defendant NHSC justices are
barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. 	“[I]t is
an axiom of black letter law that when a judge carries out
traditional adjudicatory functions, he or she has absolute
immunity for those actions.” 	Zenon v. Guzman, 924 F.3d 611, 616
(1st Cir. 2019). 	“Judicial immunity is appropriate unless a
judge is carrying out an activity that is not adjudicatory.”
Id. at 617. 	“[A]bsolute judicial immunity means not just
immunity from damages, but immunity from suit altogether.” 	Id.
at 617 n.10 (citation omitted). 	All of Mr. Ramsey’s claims
asserted against the judges arise from actions taken in their
adjudicatory capacity. 	Accordingly, the district judge should
dismiss all of the claims asserted against the state court
judges on the basis of absolute judicial immunity.
III. Remaining Defendants and Claims
A. 	New Hampshire Attorney General
Mr. Ramsey names (former) New Hampshire Attorney General
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 7

5
Gordon MacDonald as a defendant. 	The grounds for naming him as
a defendant are not clear, as there are no allegations regarding
any actions undertaken by the New Hampshire Attorney General,
upon which any relief can be granted. 	Accordingly, the claims
against (former) Attorney General MacDonald should be dismissed,
and that defendant should be dropped from this case.
B. 	Heck Rule
To the extent Mr. Ramsey seeks to challenge the validity of
his underlying conviction through this action filed under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, he is precluded from doing so by the doctrine
known as the Heck rule, derived from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). 	The Heck rule requires courts to dismiss § 1983
claims if a favorable judgment would necessarily imply the
invalidity of that prisoner’s conviction or sentence. 	Id. at
487. 	Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss Mr.
Ramsey’s claims under § 1983, asserting that his conviction and
sentence are unconstitutional because of his innocence, as
barred by the Heck rule.
C. 	Earned Time Credit Claims
Mr. Ramsey’s claims relating to his 2021 request for earned
time credits for programming he completed under the auspices of
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 7

6
the Universal Life Church are not alleged in a manner that
allows this court to understand the nature of his claims.
Without more, the fact that the DOC Commissioner advised him to
reconfigure and resubmit his request for earned time credit,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether Mr. Ramsey’s release from
state prison has not mooted his claims relating to his request
for earned time credits. 	Cf. Ford v. Bender, 768 F.3d 15, 19
(1st Cir. 2014).
Mr. Ramsey has been granted time to amend his complaint to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, to identify the
defendants to those claims, and to show why his release has not
mooted those claims. 	Mr. Ramsey has not filed an amended
complaint as directed, within the specified time. 	Accordingly,
the district judge should dismiss Mr. Ramsey’s claims relating
to his 2021 request for earned time credits, for reasons
including mootness, the failure to name defendants, and the
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this case in its entirety and direct entry of judgment.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 6 of 7

7
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 written objections to
this Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” 	Id. (citations omitted).
_______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 11, 2022
cc: 	Guy Ramsey, pro se
Case 1:21-cv-00402-SM Document 16 Filed 07/11/22 Page 7 of 7