Banerjee v Wilmot

2013 DNH 153

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 8, 2013
• Docket: 13-cv-203-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

Banerjee v Wilmot 13-cv-203-PB 11/8/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Monica Banerjee

v. Case N o . 13-cv-203-PB Opinion N o . 2013 DNH 153 Town of Wilmot, NH

O R D E R

Monica Banerjee has filed a motion seeking permission to

amend her complaint. Defendants oppose the motion on the ground

that the proposed amendments would be futile. See Platten v . HG

Berm. Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 1 1 8 , 132 (1st Cir. 2006) (denial

of a motion to amend warranted if amended complaint fails to

allege viable claims). For the reasons set forth in this Order,

I deny the motion to amend and dismiss the complaint without

prejudice.

1. Banerjee seeks to add certain factual claims to support

her dismissed procedural and substantive due process claims.

None of the new allegations affect my prior rulings that these

claims are defective and must be dismissed.

2. Banerjee seeks to add a First Amendment claim.

Banerjee, however, has failed to plead any facts to support a

claim that defendants retaliated against her for exercising her

First Amendment rights. Goldstein v . Galvin, 719 F.3d 1 6 , 30

(1st Cir. 2013) (First Amendment retaliation claim requires proof that plaintiff’s conduct was a substantial or motivating

factor in bringing about allegedly retaliatory actions).

Conclusory allegations alone are not sufficient to support a

viable claim for relief. See Manning v . Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp.,

725 F.3d 3 4 , 43 (1st Cir. 2013) (conclusory allegations are to

be disregarded when ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim).

3. Banerjee seeks to add a “class of one” equal protection

claim. She does not come close, however, to alleging a viable

claim on this basis. A class of one equal protection claim

requires more than general allegations that the Town has treated

the plaintiff unfairly. Her failure to sufficiently allege that

she was treated differently from other similarly situated

landowners leaves her with a deficient claim. See Freeman v .

Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 2 9 , 38 (1st Cir. 2013) (in a land use

case, a class of one claim requires more than conclusory

allegations that plaintiff was treated differently from other

landowners).

For the reasons set forth above, I deny the motion to amend

(Doc. N o . 2 4 ) . I also decline to assert supplemental

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismiss

those claims without prejudice to Banerjee’s right to pursue her

state law claims in state court. 2 SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

November 8 , 2013

cc: Monica Banerjee, pro se Andrew Livernois, Esq.