Spencer et al v. NH State Police et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
William Spencer
v. Civil No. 18-cv-1191-LM
Opinion No. 2019 DNH 112
New Hampshire State
Police, et al.
O R D E R
William Spencer, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
asserting 16 claims, each under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the
New Hampshire State Police and certain current and former
officers, the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General and
two of its employees (collectively, with the New Hampshire State
Police and its officers, the “state defendants”), the Federal
Motor Carriers Safety Administration and three of its employees,
and the United States Department of Transportation and two of
its employees (collectively, with the Federal Motor Carriers
Safety Administration and its employees, the “federal
defendants”).1 Spencer’s claims arise from the circumstances of
a traffic stop and subsequent events.
The state defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The
court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the New
1 The complaint was brought on behalf of both Spencer and
Spencer Brothers LLC. Spencer Brothers LLC later voluntarily
dismissed its claims without prejudice.
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 8

2
Hampshire State Police, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s
Office, and individual state defendants sued in their official
capacities with prejudice but dismissing the claims against
individual state defendants sued individually without prejudice.
Doc. no. 14.
The court granted Spencer leave to file an amended
complaint, to allege claims that provided the legal bases for
the claims against the individual state defendants in their
individual capacities. Id. at 6-7. He has since filed an
amended complaint. Doc. no. 17. In the amended complaint,
Spencer brings suit against the same defendants as in his
original complaint, including the New Hampshire State Police and
the Attorney General’s Office.
The state defendants move to dismiss the claims against
them in the amended complaint. See doc. no. 18. Spencer
objects.2
DISCUSSION
The state defendants argue that Spencer has not alleged any
legal bases for his claims in the amended complaint, that he has
not alleged a jurisdictional basis for his claims, that the
2 The federal defendants also move to dismiss the claims
against them. Doc. no. 23. That motion is not yet ripe for
disposition.
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 8

3
complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a) because it is not a short and plain statement of the
claims, and that the court has ruled that no claims may be
brought against the State Police or the Attorney General’s
Office, and so those defendants are entitled to dismissal of the
claims asserted against them. In his objection to the motion to
dismiss, Spencer states that he is bringing claims pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his due process rights
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. He further states that he
intended to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. He asserts that the state and federal defendants
“violated the Plaintiff’s due process rights through fraud and
deceptive statements made against the Plaintiff” and “violated
the Plaintiff’s personal liberty when his right to practice an
occupation came under attack.” Doc. no. 22 at 3.
I. Standard of Review
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, construe reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and “determine whether the
factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint set forth a
plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.” Foley v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014)
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 8

4
(internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is facially
plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
In addition, to state a claim for relief in federal court,
a plaintiff must file a complaint that contains “(1) a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,
. . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the
relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint
that fails to comply with these requirements may be dismissed.
Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993) (“A district
court has the power to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff
fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
including Rule 8(a)(2)’s ‘short and plain statement’
requirement.”).
II. Amended Complaint
Spencer’s amended complaint is 213 pages long with 1027
numbered paragraphs. As the state defendants point out, Spencer
does not allege specific claims in his amended complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 8

5
Although he underlines certain paragraphs in the amended
complaint that may have been intended to be claims, the
underlined allegations do not include any legal ground for a
claim. In addition, the complaint is repetitive, and it appears
that Spencer simply entered and reentered the same allegations
in multiple paragraphs.
Each of the grounds for dismissal asserted by the state
defendants in their motion to dismiss has merit. Spencer’s
amended complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and dismissal
is warranted on that basis alone. See Fusco v. Rogers, 18-cv-
290-JAW, 2019 WL 1387686, at *3 (D. Me. Mar. 27, 2019)
(dismissing 85-page complaint that failed to comply with Rule
8(a) although allegations showed plaintiff was “extremely
upset”); Barricello v. Bank of Am., N.A., 18-10398-LTS, 2019 WL
1333271, at *3-4 (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2019) (dismissing 84-page
complaint that was conclusory and repetitious). In addition,
the state defendants are correct that, as the court previously
ruled, Spencer cannot bring claims for money damages in this
court against the New Hampshire State Police and the Attorney
General’s Office. Therefore, any claims against those entities
are dismissed for that additional reason.
Further, the state defendants are also correct that Spencer
did not allege a jurisdictional ground or any legal bases for
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 8

6
his claims. Although Spencer attempts to remedy that deficiency
in his objection, he cannot amend his complaint through matters
raised only in an objection. Cass v. Airgas USA, LLC, 17-cv-
313-JD, 2018 WL 3682491, at *8 n.8 (D.N.H. Aug. 2, 2018).
Therefore, the amended complaint alleges no cognizable claim
against the state defendants.
For these reasons, the state defendants’ motion to dismiss
is granted. In light of Spencer’s pro se status, the court will
afford him a final chance to file a complaint that states a
cognizable claim in compliance with Rule 8(a) and the court’s
rulings. Spencer’s second amended complaint must comply with
Rule 8(a); must set out each claim separately with the legal
ground for each claim; and must not include claims for money
damages against the New Hampshire State Police, the Attorney
General’s Office, or state defendants in their official
capacities.
In addition, the court notes that the federal defendants
have also moved to dismiss, see doc. no. 23, although the time
for Spencer to respond has not yet expired. In their motion,
the federal defendants contend, among other things, that the
court lacks jurisdiction to hear any claim against them arising
out of the alleged traffic stop and subsequent events. Spencer
will have the benefit of the issues raised by the federal
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 8

7
defendants in their motion to guide him in formulating a second
amended complaint. If Spencer fails to file an amended
complaint in accordance with the timeframe set forth below, the
court will rule on the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss
after it becomes ripe for disposition.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the state defendants’ motion to
dismiss (doc. no. 18) is granted in that any claims against the
New Hampshire State Police, the Attorney General’s Office, and
state defendants in their official capacities are dismissed with
prejudice and any claims against state defendants in their
individual capacities are dismissed without prejudice.
Spencer is granted a final opportunity to file a second
amended complaint stating cognizable claims, as explained in
this order. The second amended complaint shall be filed on or
before August 5, 2019.
If Spencer fails to file a second amended complaint within
the time allowed, the court will rule on the federal defendants’
motion to dismiss when it is ripe for disposition. If Spencer
files a second amended complaint within the time allowed, the
court will terminate the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss
as moot.
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 7 of 8

8
This ruling is without prejudice to defendants’ ability to
file any appropriate response to the second amended complaint
after it is filed.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States District Judge
July 22, 2019
cc: Counsel and Pro Se Party of Record
Case 1:18-cv-01191-LM Document 24 Filed 07/22/19 Page 8 of 8