McCormick et al v. Beckwith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kimberly McCormick
Jason McManus
v. Case No. 23-cv-466-SE-TSM
Alma Ruth Beckwith
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Kimberly McCormick and Jason McManus, appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, have sued Alma Ruth Beckwith in a dispute over real property located in Wakefield,
New Hampshire. See Compl. (Doc. No 1); Attachments (Doc. No. 1-1). The complaint (Doc. No.
1) is before this magistrate judge for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
LR 4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of pleadings like the plaintiffs’ which
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, 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 plaintiffs’
favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Case 1:23-cv-00466-SE-TSM Document 6 Filed 01/24/24 Page 1 of 3

2
Background
Liberally construing the complaint and its attachments in the plaintiffs’ favor, it appears
that they are seeking relief from state court landlord-tenant proceedings that were resolved against
them, granting possession of the property to Alma Beckwith. See Beckwith v. McCormick, No.
464-2-23-LT-00027 (N.H. Cir. Ct, 3d Cir., Dist. Div. – Ossipee) Notice of Judgment, Sept. 12,
2023 (Doc. No. 1-1 at 5); Beckwith v. McCormick, No. 212-2019-CV-00133, Carroll Cty. Super.
Ct., Writ of Possession, Jan. 26, 2023 (Doc. No. 1-1 at 7).
Discussion
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The threshold issue the court must resolve is whether this court has subject matter
jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claims. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and “[w]ithout
jurisdiction[,] the court cannot proceed at all in any cause,” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,
523 U.S. 83, 94, (1998). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised by the court sua sponte
at any point during a lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Progressive Consumers Fed.
Credit Union v. United States, 79 F.3d 1228, 1230 (1st Cir. 1996).
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests this court of jurisdiction over a federal case filed by
a party to proceedings in state court, where the state court proceedings ended before the federal
court case commenced, and the plaintiff in the federal case complains of injuries resulting from
the state court rulings and “‘invit[es] district court review and rejection of [the state court's]
judgments.’” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011) (citation omitted). Rooker-Feldman is
“quasi-jurisdictional,” in that, among federal courts, “only the U.S. Supreme Court has authority
Case 1:23-cv-00466-SE-TSM Document 6 Filed 01/24/24 Page 2 of 3

3
to invalidate state civil judgments.” Mandel v. Town of Orleans, 326 F.3d 267, 271 (1st Cir. 2003)
(citations omitted); 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 courts’
reviewing errors allegedly committed by a state court.”) (citation omitted).
This case fits squarely within the Rooker-Feldman principle. Plaintiffs filed this action
seeking to undo the effect of the adverse judgments in their eviction cases. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review their claims challenging the validity of the result in those proceedings, upon
which they base their request for an order returning the property to them. See Compl. (Doc. No.
1) at 4. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this action must be dismissed.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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).
____________________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
January 24, 2024
cc: Kimberly McCormick, pro se
Jason McManus, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00466-SE-TSM Document 6 Filed 01/24/24 Page 3 of 3