Hansen v. Town of Ossipee

2014 DNH 072

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 11, 2014
• Docket: 13-cv-225-LM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hansen v. Town of Ossipee 13-cv-225-LM 4/11/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Leif Hansen

v. Civil No. 13-CV-225-LM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 072 Town of Ossipee and Police Officer Shane Emerson

O R D E R

Leif Hansen has sued the Town of Ossipee and Officer Shane

Emerson in five counts for various injuries he claims to have

suffered as a result of his treatment by Officer Emerson during

and after a traffic stop. He has also filed an unopposed motion

to amend his complaint, document no. 9, which is hereby granted.

In his amended complaint, he alleges that: (1) he was a

passenger in a car driven by his wife; (2) she was pulled over

by Officer Emerson; and (3) when he, Hansen, attempted to

observe his wife's performance on a field sobriety test, he was

forcefully pushed to the pavement by Officer Emerson, arrested,

then charged with three offenses (obstructing government

administration, simple assault, and resisting arrest); and (4)

he was prosecuted for all three offenses, and found not guilty

of obstructing government administration and simple assault.

Based upon the foregoing, Hansen asserts four federal

constitutional claims against Officer Emerson, and also asserts,

in Count V, six supplemental state-law claims against both defendants. Those claims include assault, battery, false

imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before the court

is defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on Count V.

Hansen objects. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion

is granted.

The Legal Standard

"A motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated like a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Omar Portugues-Santana v.

Rekomdiv Int'l Inc., 725 F.3d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 2013) .

Ruling on a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

requires the court to conduct a limited inquiry, focusing not on

"whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims."

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). When considering

such a motion, a trial court "accept[s] as true all well-pled

facts in the complaint and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in

favor of plaintiff[]." Plumbers' Union Local No. 12 Pension

Fund v. Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., 632 F.3d 762, 771 (1st

Cir. 2011) (quoting SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 441 (1st Cir.

2010)). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint "must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a

2 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Gonzalez-

Maldonado v. MMM Healthcare, Inc., 693 F.3d 244, 247 (1st Cir.

2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);

citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

Discussion

Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on the

pleadings on all the claims Hansen asserts in Count V on grounds

of municipal immunity, and he further argues that Count V(e)

does not adequately state a claim for abuse of process.

Defendants' first argument is meritorious, and dispositive.

In New Hampshire, "[n]o governmental unit shall be held

liable in any action to recover for bodily injury, personal

injury or property damage except as provided by this chapter or

as is provided or may be provided by other statute." RSA 507-

B:5. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has construed RSA 507-B:5

to be a grant of immunity.1 See Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg'1 Sch.

Dist., ___ N.H. ___ , ,82 A.3d 225, 227 (2013). RSA 507-B:2,

in turn, has been characterized as an exception to RSA 507-B:5.

See id.

With regard to the types of actions against which RSA 507-

B:5 immunizes governmental units, RSA 507-B:l, III (a) expressly

1 That immunity protects both governmental units and their employees. See RSA 507-B:4, IV.

3 defines "'[plersonal injury' [to] mean[] . . . [a]ny injury to

the feelings or reputation of a natural person, including but

not limited to false arrest, detention or imprisonment,

malicious prosecution . . . mental injury, mental anguish [and]

shock." Given the language of RSA 507-B:l, III(a), and the

well-recognized similarities between abuse of process and

malicious prosecution, see Aranson v. Schroeder, 140 N.H. 359,

364 (1995), the court concludes that, for purposes of RSA 507-B,

abuse of process fits within the category of personal injury.

The only cause of action provided by RSA 507-B that a

plaintiff may use to recover for personal injury, against a

governmental unit, is negligence. But, negligence claims

against municipalities are available "only when there is a nexus

between the claim and the governmental unit's ownership,

occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle or

premises." Dichiara, ___ N.H. at ___ , 82 A.3d at 228. Here,

Hansen has asserted a number of different state-law claims, but

none is a claim for negligence based upon the Town of Ossipee's

"ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor

vehicle or premises," id. As none of the causes of action

asserted by Hansen are provided by RSA 507-B, and Hansen does

not argue that any of them are provided by any other statute,

defendants are immune from all of them, which entitles them to

judgment on the pleadings on Count V.

4 In his objection to defendants' motion, Hansen argues that

if RSA 507-B:2 & B-5 are construed to immunize defendants

against the claims he asserts in Count V, then those statutes

are unconstitutional. The New Hampshire Supreme Court closed

the door on that argument in its recent decision in Huckins v.

McSweeney, No. 2013-184 (N.H. Apr. 11, 2014).

Finally, while defendants raise an interesting challenge to

the sufficiency of Hansen's state-law claim for abuse of

process, the court need not reach that issue, given its ruling

that abuse of process is a personal-injury claim subject to RSA

507-B:5.

Conclusion

As the court indicated at the beginning of this order,

Hansen's motion to amend his complaint, document no. 9, is

granted, and for the reasons detailed above, defendants' motion

for judgment on the pleadings, document no. 7, is also granted.

As a result, this case now consists of Counts I-IV, the four

federal constitutional claims that Hansen has brought under the

aegis of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

SO ORDERED.

handy rty Unite District Judge April 11, 2 014 cc: James Cowles, Esq. Charles P. Bauer, Esq.