Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere v. Governor, NH, State of et al.

D. New Hampshire

Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere v. Governor, NH, State of et al.

DecidedMarch 30, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-00331

StatusUnknown

This text of Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere v. Governor, NH, State of et al. (Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere v. Governor, NH, State of et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere v. Governor, NH, State of et al., (D.N.H. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere

Case No. 24-cv-331-LM-TSM v.

Governor, NH, State of et al.

ORDER

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 85) of Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc dated February 12, 2026 in every respect except one. I dismiss plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims against Governor Sununu and Attorney General Formella stemming from the October 13, 2021 incident arising under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments on qualified immunity grounds instead of for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Miller, 790 F.3d 73, 77-78 (1st Cir. 2015). Even assuming plaintiffs have plausibly alleged constitutional violations against Governor Sununu and Attorney General Formella, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate those violations were of clearly established rights. Id. at 77 (“The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the law was clearly established . . . .”); see also doc. no. 85 at 2 & n.3 (noting that plaintiffs failed to file an objection to the motion to dismiss). And contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments in their objection to the R&R (doc. no. 88 at 8), qualified immunity may be decided at the motion to dismiss stage when “the facts that a plaintiff has alleged” do not make out a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (1984)). The defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 60) is granted. Plaintiff Staples’s motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. 66) is denied. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

United State District Judge Date: March 30, 2026

cc: Frank Staples, pro se Kathleen Bussiere, pro se Counsel of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere

Case No. 24-cv-331-LM-TSM v.

Governor, NH, State of et al.

ORDER

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 85) of Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc dated February 12, 2026 in every respect except one. I dismiss plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims against Governor Sununu and Attorney General Formella stemming from the October 13, 2021 incident arising under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments on qualified immunity grounds instead of for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Miller, 790 F.3d 73, 77-78 (1st Cir. 2015). Even assuming plaintiffs have plausibly alleged constitutional violations against Governor Sununu and Attorney General Formella, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate those violations were of clearly established rights. Id. at 77 (“The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the law was clearly established . . . .”); see also doc. no. 85 at 2 & n.3 (noting that plaintiffs failed to file an objection to the motion to dismiss). And contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments in their objection to the R&R (doc. no. 88 at 8), qualified immunity may be decided at the motion to dismiss stage when “the facts that a plaintiff has alleged” do not make out a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (1984)). The defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 60) is granted. Plaintiff Staples’s motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. 66) is denied. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

United State District Judge Date: March 30, 2026

cc: Frank Staples, pro se Kathleen Bussiere, pro se Counsel of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere v. Governor, NH, State of et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-staples-and-kathleen-bussiere-v-governor-nh-state-of-et-al-nhd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack