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
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights and his rights
under state law. (Doc. No. 1). 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).
alleges that Defendant Janine MacMahan, identified as a
Family Dollar, Inc. store manager, called the police on
December 27, 2017, while Plaintiff was trying to pay for a
cookie. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1), at 2. Plaintiff
alleges further that MacMahan screamed and yelled racist,
anti-Semitic, and homophobic slurs at him in front of other
customers. See id.
asserts that the police came to the store with sirens on and
lights flashing and that the incident prejudiced him in front
of store customers, his family, his friends, and the entire
community. See id. at 4. He also asserts that he
lost his job because “[p]eople don't [sic] want to
trust other people being qustioned [sic] by the
police.” Id. According to Plaintiff, the
responding officer looked at the store video tape and told
MacMahan that Plaintiff had done nothing wrong. See
also alleges Defendant Howard Levine, identified as the owner
of the Family Dollar, Inc. store, refuses to discipline
workers or rectify employees' racist, anti-Semitic and
homophobic name-calling. See id. at 3. Plaintiff
seeks $150, 000 in damages and the court filing fee.
See Compl. (Doc. No. 1), at 6.
attachments to the complaint indicate Plaintiff filed a
defamation claim arising from the same incident against the
same defendants in state court. The Superior Court dismissed
the action. See Brady v. Family Dollar, Inc., No.
18-cv-015 (N.H. Super. Ct., Coos Cnty. June 29, 2018) (Doc.
No. 1-2), at 56-57. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed
the Superior Court's order dismissing the complaint,
before Plaintiff filed this action. See Brady v. Family
Dollar, Inc., No. 2018-0443 (N.H. Mar. 29, 2019) (Doc.
No. 1-2), at 58.
court reviews complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs to
determine, among other things, whether the 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 therefrom, taken as true, state a claim to
relief. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91,
102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The court may
dismiss an action on preliminary review based on an
affirmative defense, if the facts alleged in the complaint,
or matters susceptible of judicial notice, conclusively
establish the elements of the affirmative defense. See
Gray v. Evercore Restructuring LLC, 544 F.3d 320, 324
(1st Cir. 2008).
Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that, as a rule,
federal district courts should not sit in direct review of
state court decisions. See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413 (1923). The doctrine divests this court of
jurisdiction over “‘cases brought by state-court
losers'” complaining of injuries caused by
state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings commenced and “‘inviting district
court review and rejection of [the state court's]
judgments.'” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.
521, 531, 532 (2011) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). The
Federal District Courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over
such cases, as “28 U.S.C. § 1257 ‘vests
authority to review a state court's judgment solely in
th[e] (Supreme] Court.'” Skinner, 562 U.S.
at 531-532 (quoting Exxon, 544 U.S. at 292).
state lawsuit against these defendants was dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be had.
See Brady, No. 18-cv-015, aff'd Brady,
No. 2018-0443 (Doc. No. 1-2), at 57, 58. That dismissal
constitutes a final judgment. See, e.g.,
Griffin v. Town of Whitefield, No. CIV.
07-CV-243-JL, 2008 WL 3166473, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 5, 2008),
aff'd sub nom. Griffin v. Whitefield, 341
Fed.Appx. 655 (1st Cir. 2009) (“It is well settled that
. . . dismissals for failure to state a claim, . . .
constitute final judgments on the merits.” (citing
AVX Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28, 30 (1st Cir.
2005))). To the ...