Bryan v. Secretary of State, NH, State of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Naseef Bryan
v. Civ. No. 24-cv-158-SE-AJ
State of New Hampshire
Secretary of State
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Naseef Bryan, appearing in forma pauperis,
filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) and addendum (Doc. No. 3) against
the State of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Secretary of
State. The complaint is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge
for preliminary review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). As explained more fully below this case should be
dismissed because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Bryan’s, that are 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,
Case 1:24-cv-00158-SE-AJ Document 4 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 4

2
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.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). An unrepresented
plaintiff's complaint must be read liberally in this
regard, see Donovan v. Maine, 276 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2002),
but must still contain “the crucial detail of who, what, when,
where, and how” in order to provide fair notice of what the
claims are and the grounds upon which they rest, Byrne v.
Maryland, No. 1:20-cv-00036-GZS, 2020 WL 1317731, at *5 (D. Me.
Mar. 20, 2020) (rec. dec.), aff'd, 2020 WL 2202441 (D. Me. May
6, 2020).
Analysis
Mr. Bryan’s complaint contains no factual allegations
regarding any actions taken against him by the State of New
Hampshire or its Secretary of State.1 He asks this court to
issue a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to perform
1 The complaint addendum, (Doc. No. 3) appears to be of
little relevance. It consists of a series of legal definitions
and references to the lending criteria of a bank that is not
party to this litigation.
Case 1:24-cv-00158-SE-AJ Document 4 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 4

3
some unnamed actions that would correct a situation where he is
“unable to perform basic functions that humans need.” Compl.
(Doc. No. 1) at 4.
Of more significance than the lack of any factual details –
the “who, what when, where and how” described above – is that
this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus
against the State of New Hampshire or any of its officials. See
28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel
an officer or employee of the United States or any agency
thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”) (emphasis
added). This case should therefore be dismissed, without
prejudice to seeking relief in a court with appropriate
jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this action due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
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).
Case 1:24-cv-00158-SE-AJ Document 4 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 4

4
Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report
and Recommendation “are subject to review in the district
court.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally, any issues “not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Id.
_____________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 17, 2024
cc: Naseef Bryan, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00158-SE-AJ Document 4 Filed 06/17/24 Page 4 of 4