Triple P Ranch Realty Trust v. Town of Candia; Richard W. Porter, Trustee v. Candia Police Dept.; Richard W. Porter, Trustee v. Michael Thompson

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 9, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-fp-00522
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Triple P Ranch Realty Trust, Richard W. Porter, Trustee

v. Civ. No. 25-cv-522-LM-AJ

Town of Candia Candia Police Dept. Michael Thompson

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On February 25, 2026, the court ordered self-represented plaintiff Richard Porter, identifying himself as the trustee of the Triple P Ranch Realty Trust,” to file an amended complaint to correct several deficiencies the court identified in his original filing.1 Mr. Porter’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 8) is before the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). Though Mr. Porter timely filed an amended complaint, the new filing cures none of the identified deficiencies. This case should therefore be dismissed. Standard of Review The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of pleadings, like Mr. Porter’s, that are filed in forma pauperis.

1 Local Rule 83.6(c) permits a trustee who is the sole beneficiary of a trust to represent the trust pro se. for purposes of preliminary review only, the court assumes, without deciding, that Mr. Porter fits within the Rule. See LR 4.3(d). The magistrate judge may recommend to the district judge that one or more claims be dismissed if, among other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). In conducting its preliminary review, the

court construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all well- pleaded factual allegations and construes reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). Factual Allegations Like his original complaint, Mr. Porter’s amended complaint and attachments appear to lack a coherent narrative.

Mr. Porter alleges that United States Marshals arrested him in Woburn, Massachusetts in July 2016 based on a fugitive from justice warrant issued by the Candia, New Hampshire Police Department. He further alleges that the target of the warrant was actually a “Richard Porter” with a different middle name. Mr. Porter also asserts that he was arrested in 2006 for trying to evict an individual named Michael Thompson from a mobile home Mr. Porter owns in Candia and that police “shielded” Mr. Thompson from prosecution. Analysis Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To meet the minimum pleading standard, a complaint need only give each defendant fair notice of the claims against them as to allow them to mount a defense. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While a detailed telling of facts is not required, “the complaint should at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why[.]” Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004). The court may dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). See Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993). Mr. Porter’s amended complaint, even construed liberally,

does not give “fair notice” of the claims against any prospective defendant. In addition, given that the events Mr. Porter describes happened roughly twenty years ago, they are barred by the statutes of limitation in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. See Brophy v. Goslin, No. 25-CV-10269-ADB, 2026 WL 478180, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 19, 2026) (applying Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitations to plaintiff’s state law and civil rights claims); McNamara v. City of Nashua, 629 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir. 2011) (Applying New Hampshire’s three-year limitation period under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4 to plaintiffs’ federal claims and tort claims under New Hampshire law.). Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Mr. Porter’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The District Judge should therefore dismiss this case. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b6) (2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (lst Cir. 2016). Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report and Recommendation “are subject to review in the district court.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally, any issues “not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Id.

ut abenls, Yhingtina— Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge April 9, 2026 cc: Triple P Ranch Realty Trust, pro se Richard W. Porter, pro se