Holder v. State of NH et al.
This text of 2006 DNH 123 (Holder v. State of NH 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.
Opinion
Holder v. State of NH et al. CV-06-252-PB 10/26/06
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ralph Holder
v. Case No. 06-cv-252-PB Opinion No. 2006 DNH 123 State of New Hampshire, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Ralph Holder seeks money damages against the State of New
Hampshire, Patricia Frim, Esq. ("Frim"), Harriet Fishman
("Fishman"), and Arthur Hilson ("Hilson"). Holder asserts
numerous federal1 and state law claims arising from actions
allegedly taken by the individually named defendants in his
divorce and custody proceedings. In the Matter of Maria Holder
and Ralph Holder, 2002-M-0032, 2002-M-0372, 2002-M-0107.2 Each
of the defendants now moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
1 Holder asserts federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He also claims that several of the defendants violated the Privacy Act of 1974. However, it is clear from the language of the statute that the Act only applies to federal agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1); 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). Thus, I dismiss Holder's "Privacy Act of 1974" claim.
2 Specifically, Frim served as the guardian ad litem in the proceedings, Fishman served as the Marital Master, and Hilson was appointed by Frim as a co-parenting counselor in the wake of the divorce. Pro. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, I grant their
motions and dismiss Holder's federal claims. I also decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law
claims.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
12(b)(6), I "accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations
of the complaint, draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
plaintiff's favor and determine whether the complaint, so read,
sets forth facts sufficient to justify recovery on any cognizable
theory." Martin v. Applied Cellular Tech.. 284 F.3d 1, 6 (1st
Cir. 2002). An action should be dismissed "only if the
plaintiff's factual averments hold out no hope of recovery on any
theory adumbrated in its complaint." In re Colonial Mortgage
Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 2003).
II. DISCUSSION
Because Holder's claims are so facially deficient, a
detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary. For purposes of
this discussion, it is sufficient simply to note that Holder's
- 2 - claims arise from facts surrounding certain divorce and custodial
proceedings to which Holder was a party.
First, with respect to Holder's § 1983 claim against the
State of New Hampshire, I note that it is well-established that
neither states nor state officials sued in their official
capacities are amenable to suit for damages pursuant to § 1983.
See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona. 520 U.S. 43, 69
(1997). Accordingly, I dismiss Holder's § 1983 claim against the
State of New Hampshire.
Second, Fishman functioned as an agent of the court and
performed activities "integrally related to the judicial process"
while acting as a Marital Master. Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1,
3 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335
(1983). Thus, she is entitled to absolute immunity and I
therefore dismiss Holder's § 1983 claim against her. See i d .
Next, Holder's §§ 1983 and 1985 claims against Frim are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Torromeo v. Town of
Fremont, N.H., 438 F.3d 113, 116 (1st Cir. 2006) ("[t]he
doctrine [of res judicata] precludes litigation in a later case
of matters actually litigated, and matters that could have been
- 3 - litigated, in the earlier action"). Holder has already litigated
claims arising from the same set of facts--his divorce and
custody proceedings--against Frim in Judge DiClerico's court.
Holder v. Frim. 2006 WL 2190723, at *3 (D.N.H., 2006).
Accordingly, he is not free to pursue additional claims against
Frim in this action.
In any event, as Judge DiClerico explained, Frim is entitled
to absolute immunity when performing the functions of her office.
See i d .; see also Dornheim v. Sholes, 430 F.3d 919, 925 (4th Cir.
2005). Thus, even if Holder's claims were not barred by res
judicata, Frim would be entitled to immunity from this suit.
Accordingly, I dismiss Holder's §§ 1983 and 1985 claims against
Frim.
Finally, with respect to Hilson, Holder asserts only one
cause of action: a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim, alleging that
Hilson engaged in a conspiracy to interfere with his
constitutional rights. He has failed, however, to make out a
prima facie case for this claim. To state a claim under 1985(3),
a plaintiff must allege the existence of (1) a conspiracy, (2) a
conspiratorial purpose to deprive a person or class or persons.
- 4- directly or indirectly, of the equal protection of the laws or of
equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an overt act
in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) either (a) an injury to
person or property, or (b) a deprivation of a constitutionally
protected right or privilege." See Aulson v. Blanchard. 83 F.3d
1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S.
88, 102 (1971). In addition to these four elements, a plaintiff
must also show that "the conspiratorial conduct of which he
complains is propelled by ■'some racial, or perhaps otherwise
class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.'’" I d . (quoting
Griffin. 403 U.S. at 102).
In his complaint. Holder simply alleges that he is "of the
Roman Catholic religious denomination" and that Hilson is a
pastor at a Baptist church. Complaint 90, 91. For obvious
reasons, these allegations are not sufficient to support a claim
that Hilson acted with "invidiously discriminatory animus" aimed
at a class of Catholic Church members. Thus, Holder has failed
to satisfy an essential element of his § 1985(3) claim.
Holder's remaining claims arise under state law. I decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as I have
- 5 - dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Perkins v. Londonderry Basketball
Club. 196 F.3d 13, 23 (1st Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2006 DNH 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holder-v-state-of-nh-et-al-nhd-2006.