Baldi v . Broderick, et a l . CV-04-466-PB 09/21/05
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John A . Baldi
v. Case N o . 04-CV-466-PB Opinion No. 2005 DNH 133 John T . Broderick, Jr., et a l .
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case represents John Baldi’s latest stop on what has
become a lengthy journey through the state and federal judicial
systems. He has sued 26 individuals based on their alleged
involvement in three incidents: an alleged assault in 1999, a
road improvement project in 2000, and a libel action filed in
2003.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Baldi’s claims on a variety
of grounds. Because most of Baldi’s claims are barred by res
judicata and the few that remain either fail to state a claim for
relief or are not actionable in federal court under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine,1 I grant defendants’ motions.
1 See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v . Feldman, 460 U.S. 4 6 2 , 476 (1983); Rooker v . Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). A. The Complaint2
1. The Assault
Baldi claims that “[o]n July 8 , 1999 shortly after 11:00 PM
a truck driven by Paul Pearson, the brother of a Fish & Game
employee, exited a gravel road in the town of Epsom at a high
rate of speed and drove 300 yards across a hay field owned by the
Baldi family in an attempt to either kill or seriously injure the
plaintiff, John A . Baldi, by striking him with the truck.”
Compl. ¶ 3 8 . James MacKenzie, an employee of the New Hampshire
Fish & Game Department, “planted the seed for Pearson’s actions.”
Id. ¶¶ 39-40. The Epsom Police rebuffed Baldi’s effort to have
Pearson prosecuted because he was the brother of a Fish & Game
official. Id. ¶ 3 9 . After Baldi persisted, Epsom police
officers Roger Amadon and Frank Cassidy “executed knowingly false
affidavits” and caused Baldi to be arrested for making a false
report to a law enforcement officer, hunting from a motor
2 I construe the Amended Complaint (document n o . 9 ) in the light most favorable to Baldi.
-2- vehicle, and illegally placing an animal carcass near a roadway.3
Id. § 4 1 .
Baldi was tried on all three charges in Concord District
Court. The false report charge was dismissed during trial. Id.
Baldi was found not guilty of hunting from a motor vehicle but
was convicted of placing an animal carcass near a roadway. Id.
¶ 4 3 . The Concord District Court had a policy of allowing its
judges to see and consider notes prepared by bail commissioners
when deciding on a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Id. ¶ 4 4 .
The trial judge in Baldi’s case took advantage of this policy and
improperly considered the bail commissioner’s notes. Id. The
judge also improperly instructed the clerk to enter guilty
verdicts on all three charges in the midst of trial. Id. ¶ 4 5 .
The New Hampshire Supreme Court summarily affirmed Baldi’s
conviction. Id. ¶ 4 3 . The conviction was annulled, however, in
November 2004. Id. ¶ 141.
3 The false report charge was based on Baldi’s complaint about Pearson. The hunting from a motor vehicle charge and the charge of illegally placing an animal carcass near a roadway were based on allegations that Baldi had shot a deer from his trunk and later hung it from a tree near a road.
-3- The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office has had a long-
standing policy of refusing to allow criminal complaints to be
prosecuted against state officials, employees, and family
members. Id. ¶ 3 1 . New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly
Ayotte, Attorney General’s office investigator Michael Bahan, and
Former Governor Craig Benson have relied on this policy in
refusing to investigate various individuals who committed crimes
against Baldi. Id. ¶ 5 9 .
Baldi has sued Fish & Game employee James MacKenzie, former
Epsom police officers Henry Farrin and Frank Cassidy, former
Epsom Police Chief Roger Amadon, former Epsom Selectman John
Hickey, Epsom Police Officer Eric Bourn, Concord District Court
Judge Michael Sullivan, retired District Court Judge Arthur
Robbins, former Concord District Court Clerk Barbara Sweet, all
five members of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Attorney General
Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General’s Office Investigator Michael
Bahan, and former Governor Craig Benson in connection with this
incident.
2. Road Improvement Project
Unidentified Epsom police officers and other “accomplices”
removed soil from Baldi’s property without permission during a
-4- road improvement project and used it to fill a wetlands area in
the town cemetery in August and September 2000. Id. ¶ 4 6 . These
individuals severely damaged 200 year-old maple trees on Baldi’s
property while removing the soil. Id. Baldi unsuccessfully
litigated claims arising from these actions in Merrimack County
Superior Court. Id. ¶ 4 7 . Superior Court Judge Edward
Fitzgerald was the presiding officer. Id. ¶ 4 8 . The Supreme
Court summarily affirmed Judge Fitzgerald’s rulings. Id. ¶ 5 0 .
Baldi has sued Judge Fitzgerald and all five members of the
New Hampshire Supreme Court in connection with this incident.
3. The Libel Action
Baldi wrote a letter to the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services complaining that Ronald Brown had used
soil obtained from the road improvement project to illegally fill
a wetlands area in the town cemetery. Id. ¶¶ 51-53. Citing this
letter, Brown sued Baldi for libel in Merrimack County Superior
Court in June 2003. Id. ¶ 5 3 . Brown was represented in the
libel action by Attorney Charles Russell. Id. ¶ 6 0 . Superior
Court Judge Kathleen McGuire ordered an attachment of Baldi’s
property and the attachment was perfected by Merrimack County
deputy sheriffs Alan Demichelis and Henry Thormley. Judge
-5- McGuire later entered a default judgment against Baldi for
failing to appear at a scheduled conference despite the fact that
Baldi had never received notice of the conference date. Id. ¶¶
55-57. Brown supplied a false affidavit in a related civil case
and his wife, Gail Brown, witnessed the affidavit knowing that it
was false. Id. ¶ 5 8 . Susan Bridge notarized an unspecified
document that was not signed in her presence. Id. Baldi has
sued Ronald and Gail Brown, Bridge, Attorney Russell, Judge
McGuire, and Deputy Sheriffs Demichelis and Thormley in
connection with this incident.
B. Prior Litigation
1. Litigation Concerning the Assault
a. Baldi v . Bourn
Baldi first sued Bourn, Pearson, and MacKenzie in an action
filed in this court in October 2001. See Baldi v . Bourn, N o . 01-
CV-396-JD. Baldi sought damages from all three defendants on a
variety of legal theories. All of Baldi’s claims in that action
arose from Pearson’s alleged assault, defendants’ refusal to
prosecute Pearson, and defendants’ decision to prosecute Baldi
instead. The court ultimately rejected Baldi’s federal claims
-6- and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state
law claims. See Baldi v . Bourn, N o . 01-CV-396-JD, Orders dated
May 1 6 , 2002 and October 3 0 , 2002. Baldi did not appeal.
b. Baldi v . Stout
Baldi sued Bail Commissioner Stout in Merrimack County
Superior Court on July 3 , 2000. See Baldi v . Stout, Merrimack
County Super. C t . N o . 00-c-345. He asserted several claims
against Stout based on a letter that Stout allegedly had sent in
his capacity as a bail commissioner to the Concord District
Court. Judge McGuire ultimately rejected Baldi’s claims because
she concluded that Stout was immune from suit. See Baldi v .
Stout, Merrimack County Super. C t . N o . 00-C-345, Order dated
February 8 , 2001.
c. Baldi v . Amadon
Baldi filed a second federal action in July 2002 addressing
the same issues he litigated in Baldi v . Bourn. This time, he
sued Amadon, Farrin, Cassidy, Bourn, MacKenzie, Pearson, Stout,
and Sweet. He also sued one of Attorney General Ayotte’s
predecessors and several of his assistants because he claimed
that the Attorney General’s office was culpable in the conspiracy
-7- not to prosecute Pearson. See Baldi v . Amadon, N o . 02-CV-313-SM
(“Amadon”). Baldi continued to fault Bourn, Pearson and Cassidy
for Pearson’s alleged assault. He also blamed Amadon, Cassidy
and others for failing to prosecute Pearson and for wrongly
charging Baldi instead. He complained that he had been wrongly
convicted in Concord District Court and he claimed that Stout had
improperly placed notes in the court file for the judge in his
case to see. The court rejected Baldi’s federal claims on the
merits and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
his state law claims. See Baldi v . Amadon, N o . 02-CV-313-M,
Orders date June 9, 2003, April 5 , 2004, and May 1 3 , 2004. These
rulings were sustained on appeal.
d. Baldi v . MacKenzie
Baldi brought yet another federal claim against MacKenzie in
Baldi v . MacKenzie, N o . 04-CV-158-SM. This action, a state law
claim for negligence, was dismissed because the court concluded
that the claim was in reality a claim against the state, which
the court lacked jurisdiction to consider. See Baldi v .
MacKenzie, N o . 04-CV-158-SM, Order dated July 2 6 , 2004. Baldi
did not appeal.
-8- 2. Litigation Concerning the Road Improvement Project
a. Farrin I
Baldi and his mother, Elsie Baldi, filed their first
complaint challenging the road improvement project in March 2001.
See Complaint, Baldi v . Farrin, N o . 01-CV-98-JD (“Farrin I ” ) .
They sued Farrin, several Epsom selectmen, and the Town of Epsom,
claiming that the soil removal was an unconstitutional taking
without compensation and a violation of their due process and
equal protection rights. They also asserted various state law
claims. The court dismissed the federal claims because Baldi had
not exhausted his state remedies. Baldi v . Farrin, N o . 01-CV-98-
J D , Orders dated September 2 4 , 2001 and March 1 8 , 2002. The
court also declined to exercise jurisdiction over Baldi’s state
law claims. See id. These rulings were affirmed on appeal.
b. Farrin II
Baldi and his mother filed a complaint in state court
challenging the road improvement project in October 2001. See
Baldi v . Farrin, Merrimack County Super. C t . N o . 01-C-491
(“Farrin I I ” ) . In addition to the defendants named in Farrin I ,
the Baldis sued Brown and other individuals who allegedly had
-9- participated in the soil removal. Judge Fitzgerald rejected all
of plaintiffs’ claims. See Baldi v . Farrin, Merrimack County
Super. C t . N o . 01-C-491, Orders dated January 2 8 , 2002, May 1 7 ,
2002, and September 2 7 , 2002. These rulings were summarily
affirmed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
c. Farrin III
Baldi and his mother filed another federal court complaint
addressing the soil removal issue after they lost in Farrin I I .
See Baldi v . Farrin, N o . 03-CV-96-PB (“Farrin III”). In addition
to the defendants named in Farrin I I , the Baldis sued Judge
Fitzgerald and several lawyers and law firms who had represented
defendants in Farrin I and I I . See id. The court determined
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the
Baldis’ claims. Baldi v . Farrin, N o . 03-CV-96-PB, Orders dated
May 2 3 , 2003, June 2 3 , 2003 and August 2 0 , 2003. These rulings
were affirmed on appeal.
d. Farrin IV
Baldi’s wife, Catherine Baldi, filed yet another action
challenging the soil removal. See Baldi v . Farrin, N o . 03-CV-
342-PB. The court ruled that it lacked subject matter
-10- jurisdiction to consider Catherine Baldi’s claims. See Baldi v .
Farrin, N o . 03-CV-342-PB, Order dated July 2 7 , 2004. Baldi did
not appeal.
3. Litigation Concerning the Libel Action
a. Brown v . Baldi
Brown sued Baldi for libel and to recover attorney’s fees in
Merrimack County Superior Court. See Brown v . Baldi, Merrimack
County Super. C t . N o . 03-C-372. Baldi attempted to remove the
case to federal court but the court determined that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider Brown’s claims. See Brown v . Baldi, N o .
03-CV-319-JD, Order dated January 1 5 , 2004. Brown obtained a
$10,000 attachment in state court and Judge McGuire entered
orders holding Baldi in default and awarding Brown $1,000 in
damages on the libel claim. See Brown v . Baldi, Merrimack County
Super. C t . N o . 03-C-372, Orders dated June 3 0 , 2003 and December
3 0 , 2004. On July 1 2 , 2005, docket markings were filed stating
that “the Defendant John A . Baldi has paid the judgment in full
including all costs, fees and other amounts awarded by the
Court.”
-11- b. Baldi v . Brown
Baldi sued Ronald and Gail Brown, Charles Russell, Gregory
Bowen, and the Town of Epsom in a complaint arising from the
filing of the libel claim. See Baldi v . Brown, N o . 04-CV-206-SM.
Baldi based his claims on defendants’ alleged involvement in
obtaining the $10,000 attachment and in prosecuting the libel
action. The court rejected all of Baldi’s claims on the merits.
See Baldi v . Brown, N o . 04-CV-206-SM, Order dated November 3 0 ,
2004. This ruling was affirmed on appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claims Barred by Res Judicata
Res judicata bars “the parties or their privies from
relitigating claims that were raised or could have been raised in
[a previous] action.”4 Breneman v . United States, 381 F.3d 3 3 ,
4 The res judicata effect of a state court judgment is determined using state law, see Cruz v . Melecio, 204 F.3d 1 4 , 18 (1st Cir. 2000), whereas federal law governs the res judicata effect of a federal court judgment, see Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp. v . Lopez-Stubbe, 324 F.3d 1 2 , 16 (1st Cir. 2003). New Hampshire’s law of res judicata does not differ materially from federal law. Accordingly, I cite state and federal precedents interchangeably.
-12- 38 (1st Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted); see also Grossman v .
Murray, 141 N.H. 265, 269 (1996) (“Res judicata is a broader
remedy [than collateral estoppel] and bars the relitigation of
any issue that was, or might have been, raised in respect to the
subject matter of the prior litigation.” (emphasis omitted)).
The elements of a res judicata defense are: “(1) a final judgment
on the merits in an earlier proceeding, (2) sufficient
identicality between the causes of action asserted in the earlier
and later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the
parties in the two actions.” Breneman, 381 F.3d at 3 8 , quoting
In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 1 2 , 16 (1st Cir.
2003)); see also Osman v . Gagnon, 876 A.2d 193, 195 (N.H. 2005)
(same). In general, causes of action are identical for res
judicata purposes when they arise from the same factual
transaction. Havercombe v . Dep’t of Educ. 250 F.3d 1 , 4-5 (1st
Cir. 2001) (federal l a w ) ; Patterson v . Patterson, 306 F.3d 1156,
1159-60 (1st Cir. 2002) (New Hampshire l a w ) .
Baldi sued Amadon, Farrin, Cassidy, Bourn, MacKenzie and
Sweet in Amadon for failing to prosecute Pearson, prosecuting
Baldi, and improperly influencing his prosecution in Concord
District Court. A final judgment was entered against Baldi in
-13- that action and the judgment was sustained on appeal. All of
Baldi’s current claims against the Amadon defendants concern the
same transactions that spawned the prior litigation.
Accordingly, his current claims against these defendants are
barred by res judicata.
B. Claims Not Barred by Res Judicata5
1. Hickey
Baldi’s sole claim against Hickey is that “Hickey had full
knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff was lawfully shooting
the deer and that there were no grounds for the Epsom police to
stop him. He also knew that Amadon was not a truthful person and
that he lied to get the warrant for M r . Baldi’s arrest on the
charge of ‘Offensive Matter.’” Compl. ¶¶ 151-52. These
allegations fail to support a claim against Hickey on any viable
legal theory. Accordingly, Baldi’s claims against Hickey are
dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).
5 Baldi also sued Bridge and Donald Goodnow, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, as defendants. Baldi has abandoned his claims against Goodnow and he failed to serve Bridge. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed as well.
-14- 2. Ayotte, Bahan and Benson
Baldi alleges that Ayotte, Bahan and Benson are liable
because “[w]ith the consent o f , and policy o f , Defendant Benson,
defendants Bahan . . . and Ayotte will not allow the Attorney
Generals [sic] Office to prosecute[] those individuals who
committed crimes against M r . Baldi because state officials and
employees are involved.” Compl. ¶ 5 9 . Later in the complaint,
Baldi asserts that
[d]efendants Ayottee [sic], Bahan and Benson violated the plaintiff’s 5th & 14th Amendment right to procedural due process when they failed to prosecute state employees, officials, and their family members who committed perjury in both civil and criminal cases in the federal and state courts located in New Hampshire. In addition, they violated the plaintiff’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection of law when they allowed a class based group (public employees and officials) to be exempt from criminal prosecution, when they criminally aggrieved another class of citizens (people who challenge the illegal actions of public officials and employees).
Id. ¶ 116. These allegations fail to state viable claims for
relief. Accordingly, Baldi’s claims against these defendants are
dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
3. Judicial Officer Defendants
Baldi seeks damages, injunctive relief and orders directing
-15- the United States Attorney to prosecute Judge Sullivan, former
Judge Robbins, Judge Fitzgerald, Judge McGuire, and all five
members of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. None of these claims
are viable.
Baldi’s damage claims plainly are barred by the doctrine of
absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., Stump v . Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349, 363 (1978); Evans v . Foster, 1 N.H. 3 7 4 , 377 (1819).
Baldi also cannot maintain a claim for prospective injunctive
relief because he has not alleged facts that would support an
assertion that he faces an imminent threat of future injury at
the hands of the judicial officer defendants. See, e.g., City of
Los Angeles v . Lyons, 461 U.S. 9 5 , 102 (1983). The court lacks
the power to order the United States attorney to prosecute
anyone. Finally, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the extent that Baldi seeks
declaratory relief challenging rulings made by the judicial
officer. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v . Saudi Basic Indust. Corp., 125
S . C t . 1517, 1526 (2005)(Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where
“the losing party in state court filed suit in federal court
after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury
caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review and
-16- rejection of that judgment.”).
4. Demichelis and Thormley
Baldi seeks to hold Demichelis and Thormley liable simply
because they carried out Judge McGuire’s allegedly unlawful order
to attach his property. Baldi’s claims against these defendants
fail for the same reason that his claims against the judicial
officer defendants fail. See Gould v . Director, New Hampshire
Div. of Motor Vehicles, 138 N.H. 343, 346 (1994).
III. CONCLUSION
All of Baldi’s claims are dismissed for the reasons
described in this Memorandum and Order. Defendants’ motions to
dismiss (document nos. 2 2 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 4 4 , 49 and 50) are granted. I
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ronald and
Gail Brown’s counterclaims (document nos. 58 and 6 0 ) .
Accordingly, those claims are dismissed without prejudice. All
motions not granted by this order are denied. On or before
October 1 5 , 2005, Baldi shall file a memorandum showing cause as
to why he should not be permanently enjoined from filing further
complaints based on the transactions that form the basis for the
-17- current action. No party shall file any further pleadings in
this case without prior court approval.
SO ORDERED.
Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge
September 2 1 , 2005
cc: John A . Baldi, pro se Daniel J. Mullen, Esq. Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq. Charles Russell, Esq. John A . Curran, Esq.
-18-