United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. JOHNSTONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is pro se plaintiff Darren Brady's complaint
(Doc. No. 1) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights by subjecting him to false arrest, false imprisonment,
and malicious prosecution. The complaint is before this
magistrate judge for preliminary review, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(1).
action relates to Brady's February 18, 2017 arrest and
detention for one or more sexual assault charge(s) involving
a child. The court has done its best to identify the relevant
factual allegations and summarize them here.
to the complaint, Defendant Eoin Stapleton, a police officer
with the Whitefield Police Department (“WPD”),
arrested Brady on February 18, 2017. See Compl.
(Doc. No. 1), at 1. Brady does not state the reason for his
arrest on that date. A warrant for Brady's arrest was
issued on March 27, 2017, see id., at 6, and a
probable cause hearing was held on April 7, 2017, see
id. at 1. The charge(s) against Brady were dismissed on
April 7, 2017, after the probable cause hearing. See
id. Brady was held in pre-trial detention from February
18, 2017 until April 7, 2017. See id.
complaint, Brady also alleges that Stapleton and Defendant
Sandra St. Pierre, identified as a special education helper
“- [C]oos [C]ounty - of the Whitefield N.H.
Superintendent-school district- White Mountains Regional
school, ” id. at 2, conducted a sexual assault
investigation targeting Brady. Brady alleges: 1) neither
Stapleton nor St. Pierre was trained or certified to conduct
interviews of victims of sexual assault, see Compl.
(Doc. No. 1), at 10-11; 2) Stapleton and St. Pierre subjected
the victim to days of repeated psychological brainwashing and
mental and physical abuse, see id. at 2, 4; 3)
Stapleton and St. Pierre targeted Brady because of past
conflicts he had with each; and 4) St. Pierre was a friend of
the victim's and the real assailant's foster parents
and wanted to cover up allegations of abuse within the foster
family, see id.
alleges he and Stapleton have a history of conflict,
including: Stapleton refused to investigate rape allegations
Brady's girlfriend made against “a gang of white
guys, ” id. at 1; Stapleton blamed Brady when
Stapleton was refused alcohol service at a local
establishment, see id. at 4; and Brady made numerous
complaints about Stapleton being drunk while tending bar
before Stapleton became a police officer, see id. at
5. Brady accuses St. Pierre of causing trouble after Brady
refused to date St. Pierre and of stalking him and his family
on social media. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1), at 3, 10.
Brady asserts that he has filed numerous complaints against
St. Pierre with the WPD and the New Hampshire Board of
Education. See id. at 3, 6.
alleges that defendants Stapleton, St. Pierre, and Coos
County prosecutor Wendy E. Roberts knowingly provided false
information to a Coos County judge in order to obtain the
March 27, 2017 warrant for Brady's arrest. See
id. at 1-2. Specifically, Brady asserts that the
defendants told the judge that the victim, identified as an
eight-year-old girl with mental health needs, was sexually
assaulted by a black male, when they knew the girl repeatedly
had identified a white female as her assailant. See
id. at 2, 4. Brady asserts he is the only black male in
Whitefield. See id. at 3. Brady also alleges that
the defendants told the court that St. Pierre was a Child
Advocate Center (“C.A.C.”) investigator and a New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Division
of Children, Youth and Families ("DCYF") worker who
was trained to interview victims of sexual assault, when they
knew St. Pierre did not work for either entity and was not
trained or certified to interview victims of sexual assault.
See id. at 10-12.
further alleges that during his probable cause hearing,
Stapleton identified St. Pierre as a C.A.C. investigator who
had worked with him on the case, see Compl. (Doc.
No. 1), at 6, and testified that the child had been
questioned at the Groveton C.A.C., see id. at 2, 4,
6. Brady claims in the complaint that St. Pierre does not
work for the C.A.C. and that the C.A.C. has no record of the
child having been questioned at any of its locations. See
id. at 4.
asserts that the WPD knew of his conflicts with Stapleton and
St. Pierre when it authorized them to investigate sexual
assault allegations involving the victim. He also alleges the
WPD knew St. Pierre was not a C.A.C. investigator, a DCYF
worker, or licensed, certified, or trained to question
victims of sexual assault, but allowed her to be represented
as such in the warrant application.
seeks $350, 000 in damages, court filing fees, unspecified
state fees, and out-of-state college fees. He seeks an order
requiring that the victim's school locker be moved away
from his stepdaughter's locker; enjoining the defendants
from “stopping him” from working for DCYF or the
“human services field”; requiring the defendants
to hand over any and all information concerning him, and
ordering the defendants to stop talking about him. Brady also
seeks assistance relocating. See id. at 27.
court reviews complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs to
determine, among other things, whether plaintiff has asserted
any claim upon which relief might be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), LR 4.3(d)(1). In determining
whether a pro se pleading states a claim, the court construes
the pleading liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). Disregarding any legal
conclusions, the court considers whether the factual content
in the pleading and inferences reasonably drawn ...