The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge
Plaintiff Samuel Bourne, appearing pro se, brings suit against the State of New Hampshire; the New Hampshire Supreme Court ("NHSC"); NHSC Justices Linda Stewart Dalianis, James E. Duggan, Gary E. Hicks, Robert J. Lynn, and Carol Ann Conboy; and NHSC Clerk Eileen Fox. Bourne's suit arises out of his unsuccessful appeals of state superior court orders, and NHSC rulings adverse to Bourne. Bourne generally asserts that defendants failed to afford him due process and equal treatment because he lives in Massachusetts and has appeared pro se, and that they penalized him for exercising his right to access the courts. Bourne seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged violations of his federal rights. Bourne also asserts state law claims.
Presently before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss all claims and Bourne's motion to strike defendants' motion. For reasons set forth below, I grant defendants' motion (Doc. No. 3), deny Bourne's motion to strike (Doc. No. 8), and dismiss all of Bourne's claims.
Bourne has filed a number of cases in state and federal court, concerning property he owns in Madison, New Hampshire. In the instant case, Bourne has asserted the following claims, arising out of adverse rulings issued by the NHSC in Bourne's state court litigation:
1. Defendants violated Bourne's rights to equal treatment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const. Art. IV § 2, and his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, by issuing orders adverse to Bourne and in favor of local government officials and New Hampshire residents.
2. Defendants deprived Bourne of a fair hearing and an impartial appellate process, in violation of Bourne's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, by issuing adverse rulings on Bourne's pro se filings.
3. Defendants retaliated against Bourne for exercising his First and Fourteenth Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances and right to have access to the courts by sanctioning Bourne after he filed a petition for original jurisdiction.
4. Defendants are liable under state law for negligence, in that they issued an order adverse to Bourne without first opening and reviewing Bourne's briefs and appendices.
5. Defendants are liable under state law for fraudulent misrepresentation, for asserting in an order that the justices had reviewed Bourne's brief and appendices, even though Bourne recovered from the NHSC copies of those documents sealed in their original packages.
Bourne seeks damages and equitable relief for the alleged constitutional violations and state law torts, including an order striking sanctions imposed by the NHSC against Bourne and prohibiting defendants "from any further deprivation of Constitutional Rights to all who come before them."*fn1