Chandler v. Ossipee Mountain Estates

2014 DNH 078

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 21, 2014
• Docket: 14-CV-072-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Chandler v. Ossipee Mountain Estates 14-CV-072-SM 4/21/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bradford Chandler, Plaintiff

v. Case No. 14-cv-072-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 078 Ossipee Mountain Estates, Defendant

O R D E R

Bradford Chandler, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil action against Ossipee Mountain Estates. His

complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

In his complaint, Mr. Chandler alleges that his home was

“illegally foreclosed on” and he “was unlawfully evicted from

[his] property” shortly before Christmas in 2013. But, it gives

no further detail, nor does it suggest why Chandler thinks the

foreclosure might have been unlawful, or why his subsequent

eviction was unlawful. And, perhaps more importantly, there is

no suggestion that this court might properly exercise subject

matter jurisdiction over his claims. That is to say, the

complaint does not appear to invoke either this court’s federal

question or its diversity subject matter jurisdiction. See

generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. For plaintiff’s benefit, it is probably worth noting that

this court has the authority to resolve disputes between parties

only under limited circumstances. The two most common bases for

federal jurisdiction involve: (1) disputes between citizens of

different states, when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and (2) disputes that involve claims under

either a federal statute or the United States Constitution, see

28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the complaint does not describe facts

which might support the exercise of federal jurisdiction under

either of those statutes. Mr. Chandler and defendant both appear

to be citizens of New Hampshire, so the court’s diversity

jurisdiction would not seem to be implicated. And, the claims

arguably raised in Chandler’s complaint appear to be based on New

Hampshire law, rather than any federal law. If that is, indeed,

the case, the proper forum for Chandler’s claims is likely the

New Hampshire state court system, rather than the federal

district court.1

1 There is some suggestion that Chandler may have already brought an action against Ossipee Mountain Estates in state court. See Complaint (document no. 1) at 1 (“This case is being filed in federal court due to the fact that [the] District Court has ruled against me in the facts set forth above.”). But, the court need not speculate on whether any future state court claims relating to the foreclosure and/or eviction would be barred by principles of res judicata or estoppel.

2 Conclusion

The complaint, as drafted, fails to state a viable cause of

action - that is to say, it does not describe why the defendant’s

conduct was wrongful or unlawful. It also fails to invoke this

court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Chandler may file an

amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this

order that: (1) sets forth the essential elements of one or more

viable claims; and (2) properly invokes this court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. If Chandler fails to file such an amended

complaint within 30 days, the case will be dismissed, albeit

without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

April 21, 2014

cc: Bradford Chandler, pro se