UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Duncan J. McNeil, III

v. Civil No. 05-cv-224-SM

United States, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis plaintiff Duncan J.

McNeil, an inmate at the Spokane Washington County Jail, has

filed a verified complaint and amendment thereto against the

United States of America and its officers and agencies, including

the district and bankruptcy courts for the District of New

Hampshire, the United States Attorney, the Office of the United

States Trustee, the United States Marshal’s Service, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service and the

Secret Service (document nos. 1 and 7).

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons stated below, I recommend that

Case 1:05-cv-00224-SM Document 8 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 4
2

the complaint be dismissed.

A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

sua sponte if the complaint is frivolous or malicious or fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(I)-(ii). See also Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v.

Proctor & Gamble, 228 F.3d 24, 30-31 (1st Cir. 2000); Street v.

Fair, 918 F.2d 269, 273 (1st Cir. 1990). 

In this action Duncan seeks enforcement of a foreign

judgment entered by the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Washington. He also appears to raise

constitutional claims concerning the conditions of his

confinement and his allegedly illegal detention in the State of

Washington. Although he names defendants that are located within

the District of New Hampshire, none of the allegations pertain to

those defendants. Instead the allegations appear to relate to

defendants located within the Eastern District of Washington,

where McNeil has been deemed a vexatious litigant and is a party

to at least 40 civil actions. 

McNeil also has been deemed a vexatious litigant in the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of

California and the Spokane County Superior Court. See McNeil v.

Case 1:05-cv-00224-SM Document 8 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 4
3

Brandt, No. C05-1043-RSL (W.D. Wash. June 14, 2005). Since his

incarceration in the State of Washington, he has proceeded in

forma pauperis in at least five prior civil actions, all of which

have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious. See McNeil v.

Spokane County Jail, No. 04-371-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9 2004);

McNeil v. Gregoire, No. 03-372-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004);

McNeil v. Miller, No. 04-378-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004);

McNeil v. Tighe, No. 04-379-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004); McNeil

v. Williams, No. 04-380-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004). In a

sixth action, involving claims and defendants identical to those

here, the court denied McNeil’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis based on his history of vexatious litigation. See

McNeil v. United States, et al., No.3-05-cv-1284-B, 2005 WL

1521485 (N.D. Tex. June 28, 2005). For the reasons stated above,

I recommend that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous.

If this recommendation is approved, the claims as identified

in this report and recommendation, will be considered for all

purposes to be the claims raised in the complaint. If the

plaintiff disagrees with the identification of the claims herein,

plaintiff must do so by filing an objection within ten (10) days

of receipt of this report and recommendation, or by properly

Case 1:05-cv-00224-SM Document 8 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 4
4

moving to amend the complaint. 

Any further objections to this report and recommendation

must be filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the

right to appeal the district court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Gordon, 979

F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Valencia-Copete,

792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 5, 2005

cc: Duncan J. McNeil, III, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00224-SM Document 8 Filed 08/05/05 Page 4 of 4