McCormick v. Wakefield, NH, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kimberly McCormick
v. Civil No. 22-cv-087-LM
Opinion No. 2023 DNH 116 P
Town of Wakefield, New
Hampshire, et al.
O R D E R
Plaintiff Kimberly McCormick brought this suit against the Town of
Wakefield and the Estate of Brenda T. Beckwith. She brings several claims,
including unjust enrichment, violation of the Fourth Amendment, and violation of
due process. The Town moves to dismiss McCormick’s Fourth Amendment claim to
the extent McCormick alleges a violation related to the seizure of chickens from her
property. The Town contends that McCormick’s claim in this regard was brought
more than three years after it arose, so New Hampshire’s general personal injury
statute, RSA 508:4, precludes it. McCormick objects. For the following reasons, the
Town’s partial motion to dismiss is granted.
BACKGROUND
McCormick filed her complaint in this court, pro se, on March 8, 2022. As the
magistrate judge observed, “McCormick’s complaint is somewhat difficult to follow.”
Doc. no. 6 at 2.
Case 1:22-cv-00087-LM-AJ Document 23 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 5

2
McCormick’s claims seem to stem from a series of events related to the
Town’s foreclosure on property McCormick owned with her late mother, Brenda
Beckwith, for failure to pay property taxes. In her complaint and among other
allegations, McCormick asserted that on January 31, 2019, after foreclosing on the
property and evicting her, the Town seized her 12 chickens. McCormick alleges
that the Town, in doing so, violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
After preliminary review, the magistrate judge directed service of the
complaint. The Town then filed the partial motion to dismiss that is now before the
court. McCormick, now with counsel, filed an objection, and the Town filed a reply.
DISCUSSION
In its partial motion to dismiss, the Town argues that McCormick’s claim
(that the Town violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing her chickens) is governed
by New Hampshire’s statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims, RSA
508:4. The Town observes that the alleged seizure occurred on January 31, 2019,
but McCormick’s complaint was not filed until March 8, 2022, which is more than
three years after her claim arose.
McCormick agrees that the applicable statute of limitations is found under
state law but contends that the more analogous statute of limitations for her claims
is RSA 508:2,1 which sets a 20-year limitations period for claims for recovery of
1 RSA 508:2 states, in relevant part: “No action for the recovery of real estate
shall be brought after 20 years from the time the right to recover first accrued to the
party claiming it or to some persons under whom the party claims.”
Case 1:22-cv-00087-LM-AJ Document 23 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 5

3
land. McCormick contends that her claims are more akin to a suit for recovery of
land because the primary issue in this case is the seizure of McCormick’s real
property, leading ultimately to the chickens’ seizure. McCormick asserts that the
loss of her chickens is “merely a statement of the damages” she suffered and “this
Court should view the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as a claim for recovery of
wrongfully seized land.” Doc. no. 20 at 3.
As construed by the magistrate judge, McCormick’s pro se complaint asserted
a claim, among others, for illegal seizure of several chickens in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. McCormick’s claim arose under § 1983, which takes the state’s
statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Fincher v. Town of Brookline, 26
F.4th 479, 485-86 (1st Cir. 2022). That is, the statute of limitations for a § 1983
claim “is to be found in the general personal injury statute of the jurisdiction in
which the claim arises,” id. at 485 (citing Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51,
57 (1st Cir. 1991)), because § 1983 claims are most analogous to personal injury
claims. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 273-75 (1985); Kane v. Mount Pleasant
Central Sch. Dist., --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 5281533, at *4 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2023)
(“The Court [in Wilson] concluded that Section 1983 claims are best described as
personal injury claims, and thus, the corresponding state statute of limitations for
those claims was the one to be applied to all Section 1983 claims.”). In New
Hampshire, the general personal injury statute limits such claims to three years.
Case 1:22-cv-00087-LM-AJ Document 23 Filed 09/22/23 Page 3 of 5

4
RSA 508:4, I.2 Since McCormick’s claim for seizure of her chickens in violation of
the Fourth Amendment was filed more than three years after it arose, it must be
dismissed. See id.
McCormick’s sole argument in objection is that her claim flows from the
Town’s seizure of her property, not the seizure of the chickens, so the 20-year
statute of limitations under RSA 504:2 for recovery of real estate should apply
instead. But the claim as currently pleaded is, as the magistrate judge found, a
claim about Town’s seizure of McCormick’s chickens and it was brought under
§ 1983. See doc. no. 6 at 3 (construing McCormick’s pro se complaint to include a
claim for illegal seizure of the chickens in violation of the Fourth Amendment); doc.
no. 1-1 at 6 (claiming, among other damages, $5,000 for loss of each chicken).
Because the claim was brought under § 1983, New Hampshire’s three-year statute
of limitations for personal injury actions applies. Fincher, 26 F.4th at 485-86; Kane,
2023 WL 5281533, at *4.
2 RSA 508:4, I, states as follows:
Except as otherwise provided by law, all personal actions,
except actions for slander or libel, may be brought only
within 3 years of the act or omission complained of, except
that when the injury and its causal relationship to the act
or omission were not discovered and could not reasonably
have been discovered at the time of the act or omission, the
action shall be commenced within 3 years of the time the
plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence
should have discovered, the injury and its causal
relationship to the act or omission complained of.
Case 1:22-cv-00087-LM-AJ Document 23 Filed 09/22/23 Page 4 of 5

5
CONCLUSION
The Town’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 8) McCormick’s claim for violation of
the Fourth Amendment in relation to the seizure of her chickens is granted.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
September 22, 2023
cc: Counsel of Record
Case 1:22-cv-00087-LM-AJ Document 23 Filed 09/22/23 Page 5 of 5