Forster v. State of NH
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
January 3, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-1929
RONALD FORSTER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge.
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Ronald Forster on brief pro se.
______________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Christopher P.
__________________ _______________
Reid, Attorney, Civil Bureau, on brief for appellees.
____
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff appellant, pro se, appeals
__________
the dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C.
1915(d). Plaintiff is currently serving a 7-1/2 year to 15
year sentence in the New Hampshire State Prison following his
guilty plea to crimes he describes only as sex offenses. The
gist of plaintiff's complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C.
1983, is that New Hampshire's sex offense laws are
unconstitutional because they permit a defendant to be
convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the
victim. Plaintiff claims that the state's statutes
facilitate wrongful convictions on insufficient evidence. He
states that evidence in his own case was falsified, and
implies that the state's laws were at fault. He names as
defendants the State of New Hampshire, the Hillsborough
Police Department, various state, county and police
officials, a law firm and two attorneys who represented him
in his criminal case. Defendants are variously accused of
wrongful activities connected to enforcement of the state's
laws generally, or to plaintiff's criminal case in
particular. The complaint requests both equitable relief
(release from confinement) and damages.
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis,
the magistrate undertook a preliminary review of the
complaint prior to completing service. See 28 U.S.C.
___
1915(d); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (to
_______ ________
-2-
avoid wasteful litigation, under 1915(d) the court may
dismiss claims which are based on indisputably meritless
legal theories or delusional factual scenarios). The
magistrate found that the complaint failed to state a legally
cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for several reasons,
and ordered plaintiff to file an amendment curing the
defects, or face dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff
objected to the report, stating in part that he wished to
proceed under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), not 1983. The district
judge reviewed the matter, and affirmed the magistrate's
order. Plaintiff then complied with the order by filing an
amendment under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). The amendment, too, was
legally deficient, but the magistrate afforded plaintiff yet
another opportunity to amend. When plaintiff's second
amendment failed to cure any of the defects, the complaint
was dismissed. See Forte v. Sullivan, 935 F.2d 1, 3 (1st
___ _____ ________
Cir. 1991) (a district court may dismiss a complaint under
1915(d) following notice and an opportunity to amend in a
manner that would satisfy the procedural safeguards of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The gravamen of the complaint is an attack on the
validity of plaintiff's conviction. The district court thus
correctly held that the sole available federal remedy for
obtaining release from state custody is a writ of habeas
corpus, which a plaintiff may seek after exhausting his state
-3-
remedies. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973).
_______ _________
As plaintiff's amendments showed that he had yet to exhaust
his state remedies, and was simultaneously pursuing state
habeas relief, dismissal of plaintiff's equitable claims was
required. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 490-94, 500.
_______
As to the damages claims, they were correctly
dismissed because, soley as a matter of federal law, they
failed to state claims legally cognizable in the federal
forum. Though the pleading is vague, its overriding legal
defects are clear. Cf. Bettencourt v. Board of Registration
___ ___________ _____________________
in Medicine, 904 F.2d 772 (1st Cir. 1990) (although Deakins
___________ _______
v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193 (1988) ordinarily requires the
________
court to stay federal monetary claims which cannot be
asserted in a parallel state proceeding, dismissal may be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Forster v. State of NH, (1st Cir. 1994).
Forster v. State of NH (Forster v. State of NH) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Deakins v. Monaghan
484 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic
506 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Adams v. Watson, Etc.
10 F.3d 915 (First Circuit, 1993)
Henry Malachowski and Julia Malachowski v. City of Keene
787 F.2d 704 (First Circuit, 1986)
Paul E. Bettencourt, M.D. v. Board of Registration in Medicine of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
904 F.2d 772 (First Circuit, 1990)
Michael B. Forte v. Janis Sullivan
935 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1991)