UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nicole Corin Christian

v. Civil No. 05-cv-356-JD

Travis W. Anderson, et al.

O R D E R

Before the Court is plaintiff Nicole Christian, who has

filed suit against Grafton County and a number of its employees

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her

constitutional rights. As Christian is proceeding pro se, the

matter is currently before me for preliminary review to determine

whether she has properly invoked the subject matter jurisdiction

of this Court. See United States District Court for the District

of New Hampshire Local Rules (“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(A).

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when an incarcerated

plaintiff commences an action pro se and pays the filing fee, the

magistrate judge is directed to conduct a preliminary review to

determine whether or not the court has subject matter

jurisdiction over the matter. Id. In conducting the preliminary

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 6
2

review, the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally. See

Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzales, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990)

(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) to construe

pro se pleadings liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The

policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation

is that if they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit

the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” 

Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997), cert.

denied, Ahmed v. Greenwood, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).

At this preliminary stage of review, all factual assertions

made by the plaintiff and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom

must be accepted as true. 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. Dir. of C.I.A., 843

F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 1988).

Background

Christian alleges that on October 7, 2002, she was pulled

over by a New Hampshire State Police trooper for speeding. 

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 6
3

Although she received no citation for speeding and was not

charged with a crime, Christian was taken into custody and

brought to the Grafton County House of Correction (“GCHOC”). 

Once at the GCHOC, Christian was placed in a cell without running

water or a working toilet. 

Christian’s primary complaint is that, while detained at the

GCHOC, she was subjected to a strip search which involved her

undressing, being forced to squat and cough, and to otherwise

expose her genitals and other private areas of her body. The

strip search was conducted in front of other adults and in front

of a camera that was able to broadcast the search via closed

circuit television. Christian alleges that the defendants

conducted the strip search in violation of her Fourth, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights, as there was no reason to suspect

that she had any contraband on her person. Instead, Christian

alleges that she was strip-searched pursuant to the policy and

practice of the GCHOC and its staff to strip search every female

detained there for any length of time. 

Christian alleges constitutional violations relating to the

strip search, as well as to the conditions of her confinement at

the GCHOC, the removal of her property from the GCHOC, excessive

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 6
4

force by GCHOC and Lebanon Police Department employees, a

deprivation of her liberty without due process of law, a denial

of counsel, false arrest and imprisonment, the failure of the

defendants to protect her from these violations, and the failure

of the supervisory defendants to prevent constitutional

violations arising from their policies and practices. Christian

claims violations of her federal constitutional rights and

violations of her rights under state law arising from the same

conduct.

Discussion

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The

presumption is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction. Id.

Consequently, the burden is on the plaintiff who claims

jurisdiction to affirmatively allege jurisdiction and prove it. 

Id.; see also Bender v. Williamsport Sch. Dist, 475 U.S. 534, 541

(1986). To bring a civil action within the court’s subject

matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege that her lawsuit

either involves a federal question, volves citizens from

different states and an amount in controversy in excess of

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. If it appears that the

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 6
5

courts lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, the

court is required to dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3). By filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and alleging

that state actors, acting under color of state law, have violated

her federal constitutional rights, Christian has invoked the

federal question jurisdiction of this court. See 28 U.S.C. §1331

(authorizing District Court jurisdiction over “civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States”).

Christian has also alleged tort claims under state law based

on the same facts as her civil rights claims. Under 28 U.S.C. §

1367, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

state law claims that arise out of the same facts and

circumstances as those alleged to give rise to the federal claims

properly before the Court. Because Christian’s tort claims meet

that threshold, this Court will exercise its supplemental

jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Without commenting on the merits of the complaint, I find

that Christian has invoked this court’s subject matter 

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 6
6

jurisdiction in order for this action to proceed. See LR

4.3(d)(1)(A). 

SO ORDERED. 

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 3, 2005

cc: Nicole Corin Christian, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 6 of 6