Chandler v. NH, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Scott-Francis, :Chandler
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-373-JL
The State of New Hampshire et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Scott Francis Chandler,1 proceeding in
forma pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against the
State of New Hampshire, the State of New Hampshire Municipal
Association, the New Hampshire Bar Association, and 100 “Foreign
Corporation Agents.” 	The complaint is before the court for
preliminary review pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915.2
Standard
This court conducts a preliminary review of complaints
filed in forma pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	Claims may
be dismissed sua sponte, if, among other things, the court lacks
1Mr. Chandler’s name is rendered several ways in his
complaint and other filings, with variant uses of spaces,
punctuation and other types of nomenclature. The court refers to
him as Mr. Chandler.
2Mr. Chandler has also moved for injunctive and other
relief. (Doc. Nos. 2 and 4). 	Although those motions were
denied, the court is considering any well-pleaded facts in these
additional filings in reviewing Mr. Chandler’s complaint.
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 8

2
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See id. 	In considering whether the complaint states a
claim, the court determines if, stripped of legal conclusions
and with all reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff’s
favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief” upon which relief
can be granted. 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). 	In undertaking this review, the
court is mindful that pro se complaints must be construed
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam).
Background
Mr. Chandler’s complaint and other filings are difficult to
follow. 	The gist of his complaint consists of allegations
relating to a New Hampshire state court housing action he filed
in 2017, see Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 5, and a pending state court
criminal case filed against him. 	See State v. Chandler, No.
431-2020-cr-1698 (N.H. Cir. Ct., Dist. Div.-Derry). 	His
requested relief is framed in terms of this court intervening in
his pending criminal case and/or reversing past decisions of the
state court.
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 2 of 8

3
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
To the extent Mr. Chandler seeks to reverse past decisions
of the New Hampshire state courts, this court is without subject
matter jurisdiction to address such a claim. 	As the First
Circuit Court Appeals has observed:
[F]ederal district courts do not sit as “super
appellate courts” reviewing errors allegedly committed
by a state court. This is so whether the state-court
judgment is final, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), or
whether, and more forcefully, state proceedings remain
pending, as is apparently the case here. See Worldwide
Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th
Cir. 1986) (and cases cited therein)
Dempsey v. Massachusetts State, 959 F.2d 230, 1992 WL 60438, at
*1 (1st Cir. 1992) (unpublished). 	Accordingly, this case should
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
B. Colorado River Abstention
In the alternative, and assuming Mr. Chandler seeks
intervention in state court civil litigation, Colorado River
abstention requires dismissal of this case. 	The Colorado River
abstention doctrine “allows federal courts in limited instances
to stay or dismiss proceedings that overlap with concurrent
litigation in state court.” 	Jiménez v. Rodríguez–Pagán, 597
F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing Colo. River Water Conserv.
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)). 	This abstention
doctrine “rest[s] on considerations of ‘[w]ise judicial
administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 3 of 8

4
resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” Colo.
River, 424 U.S. at 817 (citation omitted). 	Colorado River
abstention, which is appropriate in exceptional circumstances,
“is to be used sparingly and approached with great caution.”
Nazario–Lugo v. Caribevisión Holdings, Inc., 670 F.3d 109, 115
(1st Cir. 2012).
Where, as here, a parallel state proceeding is pending, the
relevant factors that the federal court may consider in
determining whether to abstain, include, but are not limited to,
the following:
“(1) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction
over a res; (2) the [geographical] inconvenience of
the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding
piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the
forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether state or
federal law controls; (6) the adequacy of the state
forum to protect the parties’ interests; (7) the
vexatious or contrived nature of the federal claim;
and (8) respect for the principles underlying removal
jurisdiction.”
Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 27–28 (citation omitted). The court
addresses these factors in turn.
1. Jurisdiction over a Res
This factor, the assumption of jurisdiction over a res, is
not applicable to this case.
2. Geographical Convenience
There is no indication in the complaint that this court's
location in Concord, New Hampshire is any more convenient to the
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 4 of 8

5
parties and counsel in the parallel litigation than the state
court in Derry, New Hampshire, or the state Supreme Court in
Concord. 	This factor, therefore, has no impact on the court's
analysis.
3. Avoiding Piecemeal Litigation
The next factor at issue in the abstention analysis is an
interest in avoiding piecemeal litigation. “‘[C]oncerns about
piecemeal litigation . . . focus on the implications and
practical effects of litigating suits deriv[ed] from the same
transaction in two separate fora, and weigh in favor of
dismissal only if there is some exceptional basis for dismissing
one action in favor of the other.’” 	Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 29
(citation omitted). 	This action is not only “derived from the
same transaction” as the state court cases, it is an attempt to
litigate – or re-litigate - those cases in this court. 	The
state court cases have proceeded further than this case. 	Any
rulings in this court necessarily create a strong likelihood of
inconsistent rulings. 	To avoid the risk of potentially
inconsistent rulings on identical issues, this factor favors
abstention.
4. Order in Which the Forums Obtained Jurisdiction
The state court actions Mr. Chandler references in his
Complaint predate this case. 	That factor favors abstention. Cf.
Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 31 (“absence of any federal proceedings
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 5 of 8

6
beyond a motion to dismiss favors the surrender of
jurisdiction”) (citing Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 820).
5. Whether State or Federal Law Controls
Although Mr. Chandler makes passing reference to federal
civil rights and anti-trust laws, see, e.g., Compl. (Doc. No. 1)
at 3, a full and fair reading of his complaint shows that he is
seeking review of what he considers to be legally erroneous
state law rulings in at least two state court cases. 	It “is
only in ‘rare instances’ that the presence of state-law issues
creates any momentum toward deferring to pending local
litigation under the Colorado River doctrine.” 	Nazario–Lugo,
670 F.3d at 118 (citation omitted). 	This factor, therefore,
favors abstention.
6. Adequacy of State Forum
Other than his dissatisfaction with its rulings, Mr.
Chandler identifies no inadequacies in the New Hampshire state
forum, nor is there any indication that his appellate rights
would be diminished. 	Therefore, this factor favors abstention.
7. Vexatious or Contrived Nature of the Federal Claim
As the court does not find plaintiff's complaint to be
vexatious or contrived, this factor neither favors nor disfavors
abstention.
8. Respect for Removal Principles
This factor is not applicable to this case.
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 6 of 8

7
In sum, the bulk of relevant factors support application of
the Colorado River doctrine to this case and warrant the court
declining to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Chandler’s claims.
C. Younger Abstention
As Mr. Chandler’s complaint implicates a state criminal
proceeding, the Younger abstention doctrine also comes into
play.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, [the] “interests
of comity and federalism instruct [federal courts] to
abstain from exercising our jurisdiction in certain
circumstances when ... asked to enjoin ongoing state
enforcement proceedings.” [Abstention under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),] “is appropriate when: (1)
there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the
proceeding implicates important state interests; (3)
there is an adequate opportunity in the state
proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and
(4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the
practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state
judicial proceeding.” But “even if Younger abstention
is appropriate, federal courts do not invoke it if
there is a ‘showing of bad faith, harassment, or some
other extraordinary circumstance that would make
abstention inappropriate.’”
Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 901-902 (9th Cir. 2019)
(internal citations omitted).
Here, all four Younger factors favor abstention, and Mr.
Chandler’s submissions do not persuade the court that he is the
victim of bad faith or harassment, or that any other
extraordinary circumstances exist such that abstention would be
inappropriate.
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 7 of 8

8
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
Mr. Chandler’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, pursuant to the Colorado
River and/or Younger abstention doctrines. 	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).
The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. 	Only those
issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report and
Recommendation are subject to review in the district court. 	See
Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564
(1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by such objection(s)
are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to file any
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
November 10, 2022
cc: 	Scott-Francis Chandler, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00373-JL Document 5 Filed 11/10/22 Page 8 of 8