Burgess v. UNH CV-94-338-JD 03/28/95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
William J. Burgess
v. Civil No. 94-338-JD
Board of Trustees, Univ. of New Hampshire, et al.
O R D E R
The plaintiff, William J. Burgess, brings this pro se action
against the Board of Trustees, University System of New Hampshire
("USNH") and three University of New Hampshire ("UNH") profes
sors, Neil B. Niman, Lawrence W. O'Connell, and Robert C. Puth,
to recover losses related to his withdrawal from the UNH
Whittemore School of Business and Economics Master of Business
Administration ("MBA") program.1
The plaintiff alleges the defendants forced him to leave the
MBA program in violation of the constitution and common law. The
plaintiff reguests monetary damages and injunctive relief.
1The complaint does not name the State of New Hampshire as a defendant. However, the complaint does explicitly and implicitly refer to the conduct and potential liability of the state and various public officials. See Complaint at 55 6-8. To the extent the plaintiff intends to name New Hampshire as a party, the court dismisses all such claims against the state as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); U.S. Const, amend. XI. including an order requiring the defendants to reevaluate his
student status and readmit him to the MBA program.
Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331 and 1332 (West
1993). Currently before the court is the defendants' motion to
dismiss (document no. 10) which is treated as motion for summary
judgment under Rule 56. See discussion infra pp. 12-14.
Background
The plaintiff was enrolled in the MBA program during the
1990-91 academic year. Complaint at 5 18. On July 2, 1991,
George Abraham, director of graduate and executive programs at
UNH, met with the plaintiff to discuss his substandard academic
performance in two classes. Management Organization and Applied
Macroeconomics. I d . at 5 19. The plaintiff was given the option
to withdraw from the MBA program or face expulsion once final
grades were submitted by the faculty. Id. The plaintiff
withdrew from the MBA program that same day. Id. Since that
time the plaintiff has challenged UNH policies and practices
through a variety of administrative and judicial proceedings,
each time alleging misconduct by the university, its faculty,
administration and, more recently, elected officials. The court
recites the following summary of the prior proceedings in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff.
2 I. Internal Reviews and Appeals of the Plaintiff's Grievances
A. Disputes Involving the Plaintiff's Grades
In July 1991, the plaintiff submitted written requests to
his Management Organization instructor, Rita Weathersby, and his
Applied Macroeconomics instructor, Niman, for explanations of why
he received his substandard grades in those classes. Complaint
at 55 20-22. In an August 15, 1991, letter Weathersby provided
the plaintiff with his group participation grade, i d . at 5 30,
and in a subsequent letter wrote that she would no longer discuss
matters concerning the plaintiff's grade in her class. I d . at 5
35. In an August 20, 1991, letter Niman wrote that he had
already given the plaintiff a verbal explanation of his grade.
I d . at 5 34 .2
On August 30, 1991, the plaintiff requested an appeal of his
Management Organization grade. I d . at 5 39. In an October 25,
1991, letter Harry J. Richards, associate dean of the graduate
school, acknowledged a grading irregularity in the Management
Organization class and indicated that the plaintiff's grade in
that course would be increased to a B+. I d . at 5 50.
21he plaintiff continued to write letters to his former professors for at least two more months before directing his efforts exclusively to the university administration. E.g., Complaint at 5 37.
3 On October 28, 1991, the plaintiff again wrote to Richards,
this time seeking appeal of his grade in the Applied Macro
economics course. I d . at 5 52. In November 1991, Richards
replied that, based on a review conducted according to the
grading appeal process, he found no basis to change the
plaintiff's grade. I d . at 5 54. Richards also enclosed a
memorandum from Puth, who headed the appeal process, which stated
that the plaintiff's performance in Applied Macroeconomics was
substantially below that of his classmates. Id.
On December 31, 1991, the plaintiff, seeking to overturn the
associate dean's refusal to change his grade, wrote to Dean
Lyndon Goodridge to initiate the final step of the UNH appeal
process. I d . at 5 56 (letter also asserted "there's a collective
conscious [sic] at UNH that has decided that damage to me is more
acceptable than facing the problem and its repercussions."). On
March 13, 1992, Goodridge informed the plaintiff by letter that,
based on discussions with Puth, he had determined that the
initial grade review had been properly conducted and that the
matter should remain closed. I d . at 5 68.
On April 8, 1992, the plaintiff wrote to UNH President Dale
F. Nitzschke, asking him to intervene in the dispute concerning
the Applied Macroeconomics grade. I d . at 5 73. On April 14,
1992, Nitzschke wrote back that he would look into whether the
4 appeal review was conducted properly. I d . at 5 75. In an April
2 9 , 1 9 9 2 , letter to the plaintiff, Nitzschke wrote that he found
the appeal was processed properly. I d . at 5 78.
B. Disputes Involving U N H 's Refusal to Re-admit the Plaintiff into the MBA Program
On July 31, 1991, the plaintiff wrote to the UNH graduate
programs office to rescind his withdrawal from the MBA program.
Complaint at 5 25. In response Richards wrote that the plaintiff
would not be permitted to rescind his withdrawal, but could apply
for readmission. I d . at 5 29. On August 12, 1991, the plaintiff
applied for readmission to UNH. I d . at 5 31. In a September 3,
1991, letter Richards informed the plaintiff that his application
for readmission to the MBA program had been denied. I d . at 5 40.
On March 17, 1992, the plaintiff again wrote to Richards to
reguest an appeal of the denial of his application for read
mission. I d . at 5 69. In a March 24, 1992, letter Richards
wrote that the dean would assemble a five-person committee to
consider his appeal and decide whether to grant readmission. Id.
at 5 70. In a May 5, 1992, letter Raymond L. Erickson, dean of
the graduate school, notified the plaintiff that he would not be
readmitted to the MBA program. I d . at 5 81. Erickson appended
to his letter a memorandum by O'Connell explaining the
readmission appeal process and that, following its review, the
5 committee had voted unanimously to deny the plaintiff
readmission. Id.
II. State Court Proceedings
A. The First Lawsuit
On May 8, 1992, the plaintiff filed a small claims lawsuit
against UNH in Durham District Court seeking a refund of the
$1,474 he paid as tuition and expenses for the Applied Macro
economics course. Complaint at I 84. On June 12, 1992, the
Durham District Court (Shaheen, J.) conducted a trial and entered
judgment for UNH. I d . at I 89. However, because no record of
the proceeding was made as reguested by the plaintiff, i d . at I
110, the court set a new trial date for September 11, 1992. Id.
at $[$[ 110, 119. On September 8, 1992, the plaintiff subpoenaed
three witnesses employed by UNH, Nitzschke, Goodridge, and
Academic Dean John Freear, to testify at the rescheduled trial.
I d . at I 118. The Durham District Court (Taube, J.) found that
the subpoenas were not served in time, i d . at $[$[ 119, 124, and
the trial was again rescheduled for September 18, 1992, which,
following further delay, took place on October 30, 1992. I d . at
« 124, 139.
At the October 1992, trial the Durham District Court (Taube,
J.) considered, inter alia, whether the plaintiff was entitled to
6 receive an explanation of his grade in Niman's course; whether
the plaintiff received an explanation of his grade in Niman's
course; whether more stringent grading standards were applied to
the plaintiff than to other students; and whether the grading
reviews were conducted consistent with UNH review policies.
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion, Exhibit 17 ("Trial Transcript")
at 5-6. The plaintiff himself testified and examined and cross-
examined Puth, Goodridge, and Niman. See i d . at Index.3 Both
parties submitted testimonial and documentary evidence including
the plaintiff's course work, letters to the plaintiff from
members of the faculty, and evidence of U N H 's grade review
process. See i d .
On November 3, 1992, the Durham District Court issued an
opinion finding that the defendant was entitled to and did
receive a grading explanation from Niman. Burgess v. U N H , No.
92-SC-32 slip op. (Durham Dist. C t . Nov. 3, 1994) (Taube, J.).
The court also found that the defendants did not subject the
plaintiff's course work to different grading standards. Id.
Finally, the court ruled that UNH had conducted its review of the
3Ihe plaintiff's third subpoenaed witness, Freear, did not attend. However, the court ruled that it could adjudicate the case without hearing testimony from the absent witness. Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion, Exhibit 17 at 8.
7 plaintiff's grades in accordance with the applicable grade review
policy. Id.
B. The Second Lawsuit
On February 22, 1993, the plaintiff filed a second small
claims complaint against UNH in Durham District Court. Motion to
Dismiss at 5 4. This complaint alleged that UNH did not provide
the plaintiff with an explanation for the grade he received in
the Operations Management course and that UNH had engaged in
wrongful conduct during the readmission process. I d . at 5 4,
Exhibit 6.
On April 23, 1993, UNH filed a motion to dismiss the second
small claims lawsuit on the grounds of res iudicata. I d . at 5 7,
Exhibit 9. On July 12, 1993, the Durham District Court granted
U N H 's motion to dismiss, finding the doctrine of res iudicata
barred the second lawsuit. Burgess v. Board of Trustee, Univ. of
New Hampshire, No. 93-SC-14, slip op. (Durham Dist. C t . July 12,
1993) (Taube, J.). The court stated that,
[i]n effect, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the University had ended and all critical aspects of it were open to challenge by the Plaintiff prior to the hearing on the first complaint. For several months after filing, the Court gave him liberal opportunities to amend his complaint and to clarify his concerns with the Defendant. All of the issues he raises in the present Complaint had matured and involved most of the same witnesses; thus these issues could have been asserted easily in the first complaint. As the Plaintiff stated, he raises the same issues regarding Defendant's review of his academic performance pursuant to its own policies. It is not fair to ask a Defendant to respond repeatedly to different aspects of what is the same transaction; and such a practice runs contrary to our policy of res iudicata, which prohibits multiple claims arising out of the same claim or controversy. See Eastern Maine Const. Corp. v. First Southern Leasing, 129 N.H. 270 (1987).
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and orders that there be no further hearings on this matter.
I d . at 2-3.
C. The Third Lawsuit
On May 5, 1993, the plaintiff filed a third lawsuit in
Durham District Court, this time alleging fraud, conspiracy to
defraud, and gross negligence against UNH and USNH. Motion to
Dismiss at 5 8, Exhibit 10. On July 14, 1993, UNH and USNH filed
a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's third suit, which the Durham
District Court granted on August 12, 1993, again on the grounds
of res iudicata. Burgess v. University Sv s . of New Hampshire,
No. 93-SC-48, slip op. (Durham Dist. C t . Aug. 12, 1993) (Taube,
J.) (expressly adopting res iudicata findings of court order
dismissing second lawsuit).
D. Appeals to the New Hampshire Supreme Court The plaintiff has filed three separate appeals to the New
Hampshire Supreme Court, each seeking reversal of a final
judgment of the Durham District Court. See Motion to Dismiss,
Exhibit 5 (notice of appeal of first lawsuit); Exhibit 13 (notice
of appeal of second lawsuit); Exhibit 15 (notice of appeal of
third lawsuit). By order of March 31, 1993, the supreme court
declined to hear the appeal of the first case. Burgess v.
Nitzschke, No. 92-712, slip op. (N.H. Sup. C t . March 31, 1993).
By order of October 15, 1993, the supreme court consolidated the
plaintiff's appeals of the second and third lawsuits and ordered
the defendants to show cause why the doctrine of res iudicata
should bar the plaintiff's second lawsuit with respect to claims
based on the denial of readmission to the MBA program. Burgess
v. Board of Trustee, No. 93-541, 93-581, slip op. (N.H. Sup. C t .
Oct 15, 1993).
On February 25, 1994, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
summarily affirmed the Durham District Court's application of res
iudicata to bar the plaintiff's second and third lawsuits. Id.,
slip op. (N.H. Sup. C t . Feb 25, 1994).
The instant lawsuit followed with this action commencing on
June 27, 1994.
Discussion
10 The plaintiff's pro se status requires the court to hold the
complaint to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Eveland v. Director of C.I.A., 843 F.2d 46, 49 (1st
Cir. 1988) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam)). Under this forgiving standard, the court treats this
case as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a
violation of the plaintiff's constitutional right to due process.
Complaint at 55 1, 3; see 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994). The
court also understands the plaintiff to allege that the
defendants engaged in fraud, forgery, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, and defamation. Plaintiff's Complaint at 55
1-4 .4
I. Conversion to a Motion for Summary Judgment
In lieu of an answer, the defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff has already litigated
the substance of his claims in prior state court proceedings and,
as a result, this lawsuit is barred under the doctrine of res
41he plaintiff has also articulated other claims which the court cannot readily identify and are understood to be asserted in conjunction with the overall civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. E.g., Complaint at 5 1 (claim based on UNH "knowingly subjecting plaintiff to a required course assignment 'with no right answers'" and "becoming a partner in collusion and conspiracy through default of action").
11 iudicata. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at 1; Defendants'
Memorandum in Support of Motion at 5 18. In response, the
plaintiff argues that he did not have the opportunity to
fully and fairly litigate his present claims in the New Hampshire
state courts. See Plaintiff's Objection to Motion at 1-2.
Ordinarily, res iudicata is raised as an affirmative
defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). However, rather than file an
answer, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss on res iudicata
grounds where the substantive rights of the parties are not
endangered. Diaz-Buxo v. Trias Monge, 593 F.2d 153, 154 (1st
Cir.), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 833 (1979). "A party may raise a
res judicata defense by a Rule 12(b) motion when the defense's
existence can be judged on the face of the complaint." Jones v.
Gann, 703 F.2d 513, 515 (11th Cir. 1983). In the alternative, a
party may elect to raise the defense in the context of a motion
for summary judgment by "introducing sufficient information into
the record to allow the court to judge the validity of the res
judicata defense." I d . at 515.
In some instances the court may, at its own initiative,
treat a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. IB James
W. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice 5 0.408[1] (2d ed.
1994) . The court's authority to covert a motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment comes directly from Rule 12(b) (6) .
12 Levesque v. Miles, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 61, 62-63 (D.N.H. 1993);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Moreover, in a motion to dismiss,
if matters outside the pleadings are submitted and not excluded
by the court the motion is treated under Rule 56 standards. Id.
"A motion to dismiss is not automatically transformed into a
motion for summary judgment simply because matters outside the
pleadings are filed with . . . the district court." Garita
Hotel, Ltd. v. Ponce Federal Bank, 958 F.2d 15, 18-19 (1st Cir.
1992). The test for converting a motion to dismiss to a summary
judgment is "not whether supplementary materials were filed, but
whether the court actually took cognizance of them, or invoked
Rule 56, in arriving at its decision." I d . at 19. When the
court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary
judgment, it must give all parties "reasonable opportunity to
present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). However,
[the First] Circuit does not mechanically enforce the reguirement of express notice of a district court's intention to convert a Rule 12(b) (6) motion into a motion for summary judgment. Instead, we treat "any error in failing to give express notice as harmless when the opponent has received the affidavit and materials, has had an opportunity to respond to them, and has not controverted their accuracy."
Chaparro-Febus v. International Longshoremen Ass'n, 983 F.2d 325,
332 (1st Cir. 1992) (guoting Moody v. Town of Weymouth, 805 F.2d
30, 31 (1st Cir. 1986)).
13 Both parties have submitted extensive materials outside the
pleadings in support of their respective positions on the res
iudicata issue. Significantly, the plaintiff's objection to the
motion to dismiss includes a variety of exhibits, such as past
correspondence with the defendants, copies of orders issued by
the state court and a transcript of the plaintiff's October 30,
1992, trial before the Durham District Court.5 The plaintiff's
willingness to file materials with this court manifests an
understanding of his ability to contest the defendant's motion
with legal argument and supporting materials beyond the
pleadings, thus obviating the need to the give express notice of
court's application of conversion to a motion for summary
judgment. See Chaparro-Febus, 983 F.2d at 332 (trial court
properly converted motion to dismiss to motion for summary
judgment where plaintiff responded to motion as if it were filed
under Rule 56). The court converts the defendants' motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the "pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.
5The copies of the state court orders filed by the defendant have not been certified by the state court nor otherwise authenticated. However, the plaintiff has not challenged the authenticity of the state court records and the court treats them as uncontested evidence of the proceedings they purport to describe.
14 together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). "The burden is on the moving party to establish the lack
of a genuine, material factual issue, and the court must view the
record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, according
the nonmovant all beneficial inferences discernable from the
evidence." Snow v. Harnischfeger Corp., 12 F.3d 1154, 1157 (1st
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Once the moving party has met
its burden, the nonmoving party "must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for tri a l [,]" Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56 (e)), or suffer the "swing of the summary judgment
scythe." Sardines Bacata, Ltd. v. Diaz-Marguez, 878 F.2d 1555,
1561 (1st Cir. 1989). "In this context, 'genuine' means that the
evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could
resolve the point in favor of the nonmoving party, Anderson, 477
U.S. at 248; 'material' means that the fact is one 'that might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.1" United
States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 960 F.2d 200, 204 (1st
Cir. 1992) (guoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
15 II. New Hampshire Principles of Res Judicata Govern This Action
By statute, federal courts give full faith and credit and
the "same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those
judgements would be given in the courts of the State from which
the judgments emerged." Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp., 456
U.S. 461, 466 (1982). The relevant statute provides that
judicial proceedings of any court of any such State . . . shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States . . . as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1738 (West 1994); see Kremer, 456 U.S. at 466, n.6.
"[I]t is now settled that a federal court must give to a state-
court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that
judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was
rendered." Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465
U.S. 75, 81 (1984); see Kremer, 456 U.S. at 466, n.6 ("the
federal courts consistently have applied res iudicata and
collateral estoppel to causes of action and issues decided by
state courts."); see also Kvricopoulos v. Town of Orleans, 967
F.2d 14, 16-17 (1st Cir. 1992) (district court applied state law
to determine whether federal civil rights claim should be
precluded by prior state court criminal proceedings). The court
must apply New Hampshire law when determining whether the
plaintiff's lawsuit is precluded by his prior state court
litigation. Moreover, a litigant may not avoid this application
16 of state law principles of res iudicata by styling a subsequent
federal lawsuit as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Allen v. McCurrv, 449 U.S. 90, 97-99 (1980); see Migra, 465 U.S.
at 85 (Section 1983 "does not override state preclusion law and
guarantee [the plaintiff] a right to proceed to judgment in state
court on [his] state claims and then turn to federal court for
adjudication of [his] federal claims."); Cuesnonqle v. Ramos, 835
F.2d 1486, 1497 n.8 (1st Cir. 1987) ("where a plaintiff neglects
to raise federal claim [e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983] in a state court
action, that plaintiff is estopped from raising the federal claim
in federal court subsequent to state court judgment.").
In New Hampshire "a final judgment by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive upon the parties in a subsequent
litigation involving the same cause of action." ERG, Inc. v.
Barnes, 137 N.H. 186, 191, 624 A. 2d 555, 558 (1993) (citing
Eastern Marine Const. Corp. v. First Southern Leasing, 129 N.H.
270, 273, 525 A. 2d 709, 711-12 (1987)); see Schwartz v. State
P e p 't of Revenue Admin., 135 N.H. 470, 474, 606 A. 2d 806, 808
(1992) (citing In re Alfred P ., 126 N.H. 628, 629, 495 A. 2d 1264,
1265 (1985)). "[R]es judicata may be asserted only by a person
who was either a party or in privity with a party to the prior
action." Sanderson v. Balfour, 109 N.H. 213, 214, 247 A. 2d 185,
186 (1968). Conversly, the doctrine may also be invoked by a
17 defendant to bar an action brought by a plaintiff who was a non-
party to the original litigation but stood in privity with the
original plaintiff. See Waters v. Hedberq, 126 N.H. 546, 549,
496 A.2d 333, 335 (1985). Privity applies "where the non-party's
interests were in fact represented and protected in the
litigation although he was not a formal party to the
proceedings." Id.
The "crucial guestion in determining whether to apply res
judicata or collateral estoppel is always whether the action
brought in the second suit constitutes a different cause of
action than that alleged in the first suit." Eastern Marine
Const. Corp, 129 N.H. at 274, 525 A. 2d at 712; see Shepherd v.
Town of Westmoreland, 130 N.H. 542, 544, 543 A. 2d 922, 923
(1988). "The term 'cause of action' embraces all theories on
which relief could be claimed arising out of the same factual
transaction." ERG, Inc., 137 N.H. at 191, 624 A. 2d at 558; see
Eastern Marine Const. Corp., 129 N.H. at 274-75, 525 A. 2d at 712
(cause of action is the "right to recover, regardless of the
theory of recovery"). Applying this standard. New Hampshire
courts have consistently barred lawsuits found to be "closely
related" to an earlier action, even where the subseguent action
is advanced under a separate legal theory. Shepherd, 130 N.H. at
544, 543 A.2d at 923; see Eastern Marine Const. Corp., 129 N.H.
18 at 275, 525 A.2d at 712 ("a change in labels is not sufficient to
remove the effect of the prior adjudication.") (quoting Lougee v.
Beres, 113 N.H. 712, 714, 313 A. 2d 422, 423 (1973)). Thus, a
subsequent suit related to the same cause of action as an earlier
action is precluded even where the plaintiff intends to (1)
"present evidence or grounds or theories of the case not
presented in the first action," or (2) "seek remedies or forms of
relief not demanded in the first action." Eastern Marine Const.
Corp., 129 N.H. at 275, 525 A. 2d at 712 (citing Restatement
(Second) of Judgments ch. 3 § 25, at 209) .
III. Final Judgment in State Court
The defendants assert that the present dispute has been
conclusively resolved by a final judgment on the merits entered
by a competent state court. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of
Motion at 55 2, 4. The defendants have submitted copies of the
state court decisions as evidence of their prior adjudication.
Id., Exhibits 4, 11, 14, 16, 18. The plaintiff has not disputed
that his prior lawsuits were resolved on their merits by a final
state court judgment. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion at 1-
9.
The Durham District Court heard the plaintiff's original
lawsuit and entered judgment for UNH. See Trial Transcript. The
19 New Hampshire Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for a
writ of certiorari. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion,
Exhibit 8. Two additional attempts by the plaintiff to resurrect
the dispute with UNH in the form of small claims lawsuits were
dismissed by the district court. The plaintiff again appealed to
the supreme court, which affirmed the district court's rulings.
The court finds that the plaintiff's prior state court action
against the defendants has been resolved by a final judgment on
the merits entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.6
6The plaintiff also argues that the Durham District Court violated his due process rights by, inter alia, failing to respond to a letter asking "what the conseguences would be if I were to withdraw this complaint?" Plaintiff's Objection to Motion to Dismiss at 5 7. The argument does not undermine the court's conclusion that the first lawsuit was resolved by a final judgment on the merits by a competent court. First, the plaintiff unsuccessfully raised the argument before the state supreme court. See Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 5 at 5 16 (notice of appeal of first lawsuit). Second, the plaintiff has not disputed the jurisdictional competency of either the state district court or the state supreme court. See Complaint. Third, to the extent the plaintiff argues that the rulings or conduct of the state courts violated federal substantive or procedural law, the proper method of judicial review would be to appeal the state supreme court's rulings to the United States Supreme Court. E.g., District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 103 S. C t . 1303, 1311, 1315 (1983) ("[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings. Review of such judgments may be had only in this [United States Supreme] Court.").
20 IV. Identity of Parties
The defendants claim they share "sufficient identicality"
with the parties named as defendants in the prior state court
litigation to establish privity under New Hampshire's doctrine of
res iudicata. See Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion at
5 17. Niman, Puth, and O'Connell, although not parties to the
earlier lawsuits, claim that their interests were represented
through their employer, UNH, who was a named party in the state
court proceedings. Id. Furthermore, USNH, a named party in this
lawsuit, was also a named party in the third lawsuit filed by the
plaintiff in state district court. See i d . The plaintiff is the
same in all cases.
The focus of the plaintiff's claims in state court was that
he suffered harm resulting from U N H 's procedural and substantive
irregularities in the grading and readmission processes. The
various administrative reviews and appeals were conducted by UNH
officials, including the faculty members named in the present
case, Niman, Puth, and O'Connell. Moreover, the plaintiff
concedes that UNH is organized as part of USNH. Id., Exhibit 15.
Thus, in the state court proceedings UNH represented and
protected the interests of the current defendants: USNH, its
Board of Trustees, and its professors, Puth, Niman, and
O'Connell. The court finds that there is sufficient privity
21 between the defendants named in this case and those named in the
prior state court litigation to allow each of the current
defendants to invoke the res iudicata defense against the
plaintiff.
V. Identity of Causes of Action
The defendants next allege that the plaintiff's current
causes of action are sufficiently identical to the causes of
action that were or could have been litigated in the state court
proceedings. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion at 5
16. The plaintiff has not explicitly or impliedly challenged the
defendant's allegations in his objection to the motion to
dismiss. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 1-9.
A. Claims That Have Already Been Litigated
In his present complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
defendants USNH and Niman engaged in discrimination and fraud
regarding the grading of the plaintiff's course work.
Plaintiff's Complaint at 55 1, 2. The plaintiff next claims that
the defendant USNH failed to correct the grading discrimination
and fraud. I d . at 5 1. The plaintiff further alleges that
defendant USNH breached a contract by failing to review the
grading process and breached its fiduciary duty by failing to
22 enforce university policies. Id. The plaintiff also alleges
that defendant O'Connell committed forgery during the readmission
process. I d . at 5 3.
In each claim the plaintiff seeks to recover for harms
resulting from alleged procedural and substantive irregularities
in the grading and readmission processes under theories of fraud,
discrimination, and violation of the UNH grade review policy.
The court finds that the federal claims are substantially similar
to those unsuccessfully asserted under slightly different
phraseology before the state court. Indeed, there can be no
guestion that this lawsuit, at least with respect to the claims
of fraud and wrongful conduct in the denial of readmission, is
barred under New Hampshire law given the earlier rulings by the
state district court, later affirmed by the state supreme court,
that principles of res iudicata militate dismissal of the
plaintiff's claims. The court finds that because the claims
asserted in the present case are substantially the same as those
presented, litigated and adjudicated by the state court, they
cannot be re-litigated in this or any other federal court action.
23 B. Claims That Could Have Been Litigated
The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant USNH
violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by
refusing to reinstate his status in the MBA program, by failing
to grant him an opportunity to be heard or be present at a
readmission hearing, and by applying an arbitrary and capricious
grade review process to his detriment. Complaint at 5 1. The
plaintiff further alleges that defendant O'Connell violated the
Fourteenth Amendment by negligently conducting the plaintiff's
readmission review, i d . at 5 3, and that USNH tortiously
converted the plaintiff's final exam papers. I d . at 5 1. And,
in two final variations of a now familiar theme, the plaintiff
alleges that defendant Puth defamed his character in the course
of the grade review process, i d . at 5 4, and that all the named
defendants are liable for the tort of education malpractice. Id.
at 5 5.
The plaintiff's due process, conversion, defamation, and
educational malpractice claims against the defendants are based
upon the same cause of action as his original state district
court claims because they "aris[e] out of the same factual
transaction[s ]" and occurrences, namely the series of events
surrounding his departure from the MBA program. See ERG, Inc.,
137 N.H. at 191, 624 A.2d at 558. To the extent that the
24 plaintiff has articulated claims that are legally distinct from
those unsuccessfully asserted before the state courts, such as a
federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such claims
could have been asserted at that time and, thus, also must be
barred under res iudicata. The plaintiff may not proceed with
his due process, conversion, defamation and educational
malpractice claims in this or any other federal court proceeding.
The plaintiff has enjoyed an abundance of process, both
administrative and judicial, in what he has termed his "3-year
effort in pursuit of justice." Complaint at 28, 5 4. However,
under New Hampshire law "the doctrine of res judicata . . . has
been established to avoid repetitive litigation so that at some
point litigation over a particular controversy must come to an
end." Eastern Marine Const. Corp., 129 N.H. at 270, 525 A. 2d at
712 (emphasis supplied). The plaintiff's dispute with the
University of New Hampshire and its faculty and administration,
has reached such a point. The court rules that this lawsuit is
barred by New Hampshire principles of res iudicata.7
7The plaintiff should be aware that continued attempts to re-litigate this dispute may result in sanctions as pro se litigants are bound by the procedural and substantive rules of law, including the provisions of Rule 11. E.g., Hoover v. Gershman Inv. Corp., 774 F. Supp. 60, 64-65 (D. Mass. 1991) (citing Lefebvre v. C.I.R., 830 F.2d 417, 419 (1st Cir. 1987); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee on 1987 Amendment). Specifically, where "a pro se litigant attempts to 're-hash' claims that have already been litigated in prior
25 Conclusion
The court has converted the defendants' motion to dismiss
(document no. 10) into a motion for summary judgment under Rule
56. The court finds that, even under the indulgent review
accorded pro se litigants, the plaintiff's claims are barred by
New Hampshire principles of res iudicata. The motion to dismiss
is granted and all other pending motions are moot. The clerk is
ordered to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr, Chief Judge March 27, 1995
cc: William J. Burgess, pro se Ronald F. Rodgers, Esguire
actions. Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate, and indeed are reguired if the pleading is frivolous." Amsden v. Moran, No. 88- 151-SD, slip op. at 6 (D.N.H. July 18, 1991) (citations omitted).