Collier v. Carrol et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Randall S. Collier
v. No. 24-cv-15-JL-AJ
James S. Carroll, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Randall S. Collier has sued New
Hampshire state court Judges James Carroll and Michael Garner,
and the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee (“JCC”). Mr.
Collier alleges that the defendants, individually or
collectively, committed various torts and Constitutional
violations against him during the pendency of a state court
domestic relations matter involving Mr. Collier and his family.
The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 11), to
which Mr. Collier has objected (Doc. No. 12).1 The defendants’
motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
a Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR
72.1.
1 Mr. Collier filed a single document containing both his
objection to the defendants’ motion and a “revised Civil
Complaint.” To the extent Mr. Collier was seeking leave to file
an amended complaint, the single filing violated LR 7.1(a)(1).
Nevertheless, in deference to his pro se status, the court will
treat Mr. Collier’s “revised” complaint as an addendum to his
original complaint and analyze the defendants’ motion
accordingly.
Case 1:24-cv-00015-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 1 of 4

2
Factual Background and Procedural History
Mr. Collier’s claims in this case stem from judges’
decisions regarding “an invalid domestic violence protective
order and parenting plan and sole decision-making responsibility
for the mother only” in the New Hampshire state court case In
the Matter of Hillary May and Randall S. Collier, No. 650-2-13-
DM-00010 (4th Cir. Ct., District Division, Laconia). See Compl.
Add. (Doc. No. 12) ¶¶ 6, 17. He has sued the judges in that
case and sued the JCC for failing to take action against those
judges. He asserts fifteen separate claims, based on the
judges’ acts and the JCC’s inaction. Id. ¶¶ 17-52. Mr. Collier
seeks relief in the form of monetary damages “near $70M” and an
Order from this court to vacate the state court’s orders. Id.
at 31.
In 2022, Mr. Collier filed a nearly identical lawsuit in
this court. See Collier v. Carroll, et al., Civ. No. 22-cv-162-
LM (D.N.H. filed May 9, 2022). On January 31, 2023, Judge
McCafferty granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, based on
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Order (Doc. No. 22).
Specifically, Judge McCafferty held that Mr. Collier’s lawsuit
was, in effect, an appeal from the New Hampshire state court
rulings described above and was, therefore, barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 2-3. There being little or no
meaningful difference between this lawsuit and Mr. Collier’s
Case 1:24-cv-00015-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 2 of 4

3
previous suit against these defendants, the same result is
warranted here.
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of state
courts if the underlying matters are concluded. This doctrine
precludes a federal action if the relief requested would
effectively reverse or void a state court decision, or if the
plaintiff's claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the state
court action. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-1006
(1994); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., Inc.,
544 U.S. 280 (2005) (doctrine applies to cases by state court
losers seeking review and rejection of state court judgments
rendered prior to commencement of federal suit).
Here, Mr. Collier explicitly asks this court to reverse
state court rulings because, he believes, they were incorrect,
unconstitutional, or corrupt. This court does not have
jurisdiction to do so, and the action should, therefore, be
dismissed. See Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 59 (1st Cir.
2009)(affirming dismissal of action relating to custody of child
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman
doctrine); see also Dempsey v. Massachusetts State, 959 F.2d
230, 1992 WL 60438, at *1 (1st Cir. 1992) (unpublished)
(“[F]ederal district courts do not sit as ‘super appellate
Case 1:24-cv-00015-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 3 of 4

4
courts’ reviewing errors allegedly committed by a state court.”)
(citation omitted). For the same reasons, Mr. Collier’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) should be denied.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should grant the
defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) based on lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and deny plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. No. 10). 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 to this Report and Recommendation are subject to
review in the district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United
Natl 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).
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 15, 2024
cc: Randall Collier, pro se
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
Case 1:24-cv-00015-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 4 of 4