Ramos v. State of New Hampshire

2000 DNH 179

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: August 10, 2000
• Docket: CV-00-136-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ramos v . State of New Hampshire CV-00-136-M 08/10/00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Israel Ramos

v. Civil N o . 00-136-M Opinion N o . 2000 DNH 179 State of New Hampshire, et a l .

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before this court is pro se plaintiff Israel Ramos who has

filed suit against the State of New Hampshire, Hillsborough

County Attorney Peter McDonough, Assistant Hillsborough County

Attorney Kristen Wilson, and Grand Jury Foreperson Cheri

Campbell. Ramos alleges the defendants violated his civil rights

by discriminating against him and violating principles of double

jeopardy in bringing felony charges against him after a state

District Court judge made a finding of “no p[robable] c[ause]” at

a preliminary hearing1. As Ramos is proceeding pro se and in

1 Ramos also contests his continued incarceration on bail despite the state District Court clerk’s notification to the Hillsborough County House of Correction that the District Court was no longer holding him. This charge is more properly raised as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus than in a civil rights lawsuit and will be addressed in the body of this Report and Recommendation. forma pauperis, the complaint is currently before me for

preliminary review. See United States District Court for the

District of New Hampshire Local Rules (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the

reasons stated below, I recommend that the complaint be

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Background

On December 1 , 1999, complaint forms were sworn out against

Israel Ramos in the Manchester District Court for two felony

counts of sale of a controlled drug and a misdemeanor theft

charge. On December 7 , 1999, the Manchester District Court set

bail on each felony in the amount of $20,000 and on the

misdemeanor in the amount of $5000. Ramos was held at the

Hillsborough County House of Correction. On December 1 3 , 1999,

Ramos appeared in the Manchester District Court for a probable

cause hearing on the two felonies where the judge made a finding

of “no p[robable] c[ause]” on each complaint due to the failure

of the State to identify Ramos. On that date, the Clerk of the

Manchester District Court notified the House of Correction by

letter that Ramos was no longer to be held on the felonies as the

matters had been disposed of with a finding of “no probable

cause.” Presumably, at that time, Ramos was still being held on

2 the misdemeanor which had not yet been resolved.

On December 1 6 , 1999, the Hillsborough County Grand Jury

returned three felony indictments against Ramos: two charges of

sale of a controlled drug and one charge of sale of a counterfeit

drug 2 . Each of these indictments was signed by the foreperson of

the grand jury, Cheri Campbell, and Hillsborough County Attorney

Peter McDonough. No other information regarding the current

status of the felonies is provided by Ramos.

On January 2 0 , 2000, the misdemeanor theft was scheduled for

a bench trial in the Manchester District Court. On that date, a

nolle prosequi was entered, dismissing the charge without

prejudice3. On that date, the Manchester District Court Clerk’s

office notified the Hillsborough County House of Correction by

letter that the misdemeanor had been “nol prossed” and that Ramos

was no longer to be held on bail in regard to that charge.

2 It is possible that the offense charged as a misdemeanor theft in the District Court could be brought as a sale of a counterfeit drug felony charge in the Superior Court as the common fact scenario of taking money for a substance which is not what it purports to be can fit both offenses. 3 The back of the complaint indicates that the charge was going to be brought in the Superior court by the County Attorney. Although this had possibly already been done by the bringing of a sale of counterfeit drug charge, Ramos has not indicated in his complaint whether or not this has occurred.

3 Currently, Ramos’ incarceration continues. He has provided

no further information regarding the status of charges against

him in the Superior Court but complains of racial discrimination,

subjection to double jeopardy, and his continued incarceration

after the Manchester District Court’s initial dismissal of all of

the charges against him. This Court, for the purposes of this

review, will assume that Ramos has pending charges in the

Hillsborough County Superior Court and that his continued

incarceration is pursuant to those pending felonies4.

Discussion

In reviewing a pro se complaint, this Court is obliged to

construe the pleading liberally. See Ayala Serrano v . Lebron

Gonzales, 909 F.2d 8 , 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (following Estelle v .

Gamble, 429 U.S. 9 7 , 106 (1976) to construe pro se pleadings

liberally in favor of that party). At this preliminary stage of

review, all factual assertions made by the plaintiff and

inferences reasonably drawn therefrom must be accepted as true.

4 This is the only reasonable reading of the situation presented by Ramos in his complaint. I f , in fact, Ramos is not being held pursuant to the felonies, but is simply not being released from his District Court bail order, he would be well- advised to immediately file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court. However, it is simply not reasonable for this Court to assume that that is the case.

4 See Aulson v . Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1 , 3 (1st Cir. 1996)(stating the

“failure to state a claim” standard of review and explaining that

all “well-pleaded factual averments,” not bald assertions, must

be accepted as true). This review ensures that pro se pleadings

are given fair and meaningful consideration. See Eveland v .

Director of C.I.A., 843 F.2d 4 6 , 49 (1st Cir. 1988). Dismissal

of pro s e , in forma pauperis complaints is appropriate if they

are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) & (iii)(effective

April 2 6 , 1996). Even generously reading the complaint in favor

of Ramos, I cannot find any claim upon which relief may be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Ramos alleges that his current incarceration violates his

right to be free from racial discrimination and his right to be

protected from double jeopardy. A challenge to Ramos’

incarceration would ordinarily sound in habeas corpus proceedings

rather than in a civil rights lawsuit. Ramos’ choice of

defendants, however, seems to indicate that Ramos is claiming

that his rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

5 have been violated by the bringing of felony charges in the

Superior Court, as that is the only possible conduct described in

Ramos’ complaint that is attributable to the named defendants. I

will address each of these claims in turn.

1. Illegal Continued Incarceration

Habeas corpus is the exclusive avenue of relief for a state

prisoner seeking release from confinement and any § 1983 claim

seeking injunctive relief must be dismissed. Heck v . Humphrey,

512 U.S. 466, 480 (1994)(explaining Preiser v . Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973)(“When a state prisoner is challenging the

very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the

relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to

immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment,

his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”))

Here, Ramos has not precisely stated what relief he seeks 5 ,

but his complaint of continued incarceration despite letters from

the Manchester District Court to the House of Correction appears

to request that this Court either order his release or declare

that his release should be effected. To the extent that, in this

5 Ramos requests only that this Court “investigate and review all issues.”

6 way, Ramos contests his continued incarceration, he cannot

proceed in this suit and must, instead, proceed with habeas

corpus proceedings after properly exhausting his state court

remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Since there is no indication

that any such proceeding has been initiated, much less concluded,

in the state court, no challenge to Ramos’ incarceration will be

entertained by this Court at this time. To the extent,

therefore, that Ramos challenges the fact or duration of his

incarceration, I recommend the complaint be dismissed without

prejudice.

Further, had Ramos filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus rather than a civil rights lawsuit at this time, I would

recommend dismissal of the action without prejudice on the ground

that the abstention principles announced in Younger v . Harris,

401 U.S. 37 (1971), require this Court to reject pretrial habeas

corpus petitions in order to avoid derailment of or interference

with a pending state proceeding. In r e : Justices of the Superior

Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial Court, ___ F.3d ___

(1st Cir. July 3 , 2000).

2. Racial Discrimination Claim

Ramos’ complaint states that his rights pursuant to 42

7 U.S.C. § 1981 6 have been violated. In bringing a § 1981 action,

the plaintiff must plead and prove that the actions of the

defendants were “intentionally discriminatory and racially

motivated.” Dartmouth Review v . Dartmouth College, 709 F.Supp.

3 2 , 35 (D.N.H. 1989)(judgment affirmed by Dartmouth Review v .

Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989)); see also Correa-

Martinez v . Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 4 9 , 53 (1990). In order

to sufficiently state a § 1981 claim, a plaintiff must outline

the specific facts giving rise to an inference of discriminatory

animus -- he must allege some facts that demonstrate that the

race of the plaintiff was the reason for the defendants’ actions.

Id. at 3 6 . Without such a showing, a § 1981 action cannot be

maintained. Id.

In addition to the facts discussed above, Ramos asserts in

6 The relevant portion of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

8 his complaint that he finds “grounds of discrimination” and

“feels that he has been discriminated . . . [sic].” Even reading

the complaint generously, as I must, see Ayala Serrano v . Lebron

Gonzales, 909 F.2d at 1 5 ; Aulson v . Blanchard, 83 F.2d 1 , 3 (1st

Cir. 1996), I cannot find that Ramos has alleged any facts

demonstrating that racially discriminatory animus, motivation, or

intent was the cause of any conduct on the part of the

defendants. I therefore recommend that, to the extent Ramos

claims a § 1981 violation, his complaint be dismissed as failing

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. Double Jeopardy Claim

Ramos asserts in his complaint that he “has found cause of

‘double jeopardy.’[sic]” Ramos did not specify exactly how the

facts he outlined caused him to be subjected to double jeopardy,

but, construing the pleading liberally, I assume Ramos is

contesting the validity of his felony charges in Superior Court

because the District Court found no probable cause on the charges

and released him on those charges prior to indictment.

If a state district court has jurisdiction to render

verdicts only in misdemeanors, and its power in a felony case is

9 limited to a determination of probable cause to bind the accused

over for prosecution in the Superior Court, the district court’s

decision not to bind the accused over to Superior Court does not

constitute “jeopardy.” Lemieux v . Robbins, 414 F.2d 353, 354 (1st

Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Rutz v . Levy, 268 U.S. 390

(1925). Therefore, prosecution in Superior Court is not “double

jeopardy” as the accused has not been twice placed in jeopardy

for the same offense.

Here, the Manchester District Court’s jurisdiction in the

face of a felony charge is limited by statute to the issue of

probable cause. See N.H. R.S.A. 502-A:11; State v . Stevens, 121

N.H. 287 (1981); Benton v . District Court, 111 N.H. 64 (1971).

Therefore, Ramos was never placed in jeopardy by that court’s

preliminary consideration of the charge. The district court’s

failure to find probable cause has no bearing on that

determination. Therefore, to the extent Ramos complains of a

violation of his right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for

these offenses, I recommend the complaint be dismissed.

4. Immunity

a. State of New Hampshire, Hillsborough County Attorney Peter McDonough and Assistant

10 Hillsborough County Attorney Kristen Wilson

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a prosecutor is entitled to absolute

immunity from suit for conduct associated with his or her

prosecutorial function. Kalina v . Fletcher, 522 U.S. 1 1 8 , 128

(1997)(prosecutor’s conduct in connection with preparation and

filing of charging documents protected by absolute immunity);

Imbler v . Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)(absolute immunity

for prosecutor’s conduct in the initiation of prosecution).

Further, it is well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars

suits against state entities and state agents working in their

official capacities unless the state has expressly waived

immunity, which has not been done by New Hampshire for actions

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct

and Sewer Authority v . Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146

(1993)(Eleventh Amendment bars all suits in federal court against

states or their agencies); Will v . Michigan Dept. of State

Police, 492 U.S. 5 8 , 71 (1989)(holding that § 1983 does not

override the Eleventh Amendment and that the state is not a

person within the meaning of § 1983).

Ramos has sued the State of New Hampshire and two state

prosecutors. Although McDonough’s name appears on the

11 indictment, Assistant County Attorney Wilson’s does not.

However, I will assume that Attorney Wilson played some role in

the prosecution of this matter 7 . Because the only conduct

alleged that is attributable in any way to these defendants is

related to the actual bringing of felony charges in the Superior

Court, I find they are absolutely immune from this suit and

recommend the complaint be dismissed in its entirety as it stands

against the State of New Hampshire, Hillsborough County Attorney

Peter McDonough, and Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney

Kristen Wilson.

b. Grand Jury Foreperson Cheri Campbell

Grand jurors acting within the scope of their duties enjoy

immunity from suit in this country. See Imbler v . Pachtman, 424

U.S. at 422-423; Cleavinger v . Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985);

Antoine v . Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 433 f n . 8

(1993). As there is nothing more soundly within the scope of the

duties of a grand juror than returning a felony indictment, I

find that M s . Campbell is immune from suit and recommend that the

7 Ramos does not mention Wilson at all in the body of his complaint except to name her as a defendant.

12 complaint, as it stands against her, be dismissed.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that this

complaint be dismissed in its entirety for failing to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); LR 4.3(d)(1)(B)(i). If approved, the

dismissal will count as a strike against the plaintiff under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Committee v . Gordon, 979 F.2d 1 1 , 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v . Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 , 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

James R. Muirhead United States Magistrate Judge

Date:

cc: Israel Ramos