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

Nicole Corin Christian, proceeding pro se, filed suit

against officers and employees of Grafton County, alleging

constitutional violations when she was arrested, strip searched,

and detained at the county jail in October of 2002. Christian

also names Paul Boucher as a defendant, alleging that he

“appeared to act under the agency and on behalf of Travis W.

Anderson, as [he] followed his instructions without comment or

complaint.” Complaint ¶ 8(i). Boucher moves to dismiss

Christian’s claims against him on the ground that as a bail

commissioner, he is protected by absolute immunity. Christian

moves for an extension of time to respond to the motion to

dismiss.

Christian contends that she requires an additional fortyfive days to respond to Boucher’s motion in order to complete

discovery pertaining to the circumstances of Boucher’s

resignation from his office as bail commissioner. She argues

that Boucher “may have lost competency to officially act as a

Bail Commissioner when he effectively admitted to having

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 33 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 5
2

fraudulently assumed the identity of Assistant Attorney General

Michael Walls for the purpose of giving an official status to his

intimidation efforts against a business competitor.” She

represents that Boucher resigned his office on November 13, 2002.

Boucher’s motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts the facts alleged in the

complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of

the plaintiff. Edes v. Verizon Comms., 417 F.3d 133, 137 (1st

Cir. 2005). The court must determine whether the complaint,

construed in the proper light, “alleges facts sufficient to make

out a cognizable claim.” Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231,

241 (1st Cir. 2002). “The standard for granting a motion to

dismiss is an exacting one: ‘a complaint should not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim

which would entitle [her] to relief.’” McLaughlin v. Boston

Harbor Cruise Lines, Inc., 419 F.3d 47, 50 (1st Cir. 2005)

(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46 (1957)). A complaint

filed by a pro se litigant is held to less stringent standards

than one drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972).

That standard limits the court’s review to the allegations

in the complaint. In the context of a motion to dismiss, the

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 33 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 5
3

court is generally precluded from considering matters that are

extrinsic to the complaint. See Forestier Fradera v.

Municipality of Mayaguez, 440 F.3d 17, 21 n.4 (1st Cir. 2006);

Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d, 1, 3-4 (1st Cir. 1993). Therefore,

the discovery that Christian asserts is necessary for her

response is not material in the context of a motion to dismiss. 

Instead, if Christian were to respond to the motion to dismiss

with extrinsic evidentiary materials, the court would determine

whether those materials would be considered in deciding the

motion, and if so, would convert the motion to one for summary

judgment. See McCord v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 390 F.3d 138, 141

(1st Cir. 2004); Boateng v. Interamerican Univ., Inc., 210 F.3d

56, 60 (1st Cir. 2000).

Christian does not dispute that Boucher was a duly appointed

bail commissioner until he resigned on November 13, 2002. The

misfeasance that Christian asserts led to Boucher’s resignation

did not involve her or any of the events underlying her action

here. Therefore, the circumstances that led to Boucher’s

resignation and his subsequent resignation do not appear to be

material to Christian’s claims or to Boucher’s defense of

absolute immunity. See, e.g., Briand v. Morin, 2003 WL 540185,

at *1 (D.N.H. Feb. 25, 2003).

In addition, as Boucher notes in his motion to dismiss,

Christian has not made any allegations of wrong-doing as to him. 

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 33 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 5
4

Although he was a bail commissioner in October of 2002, when

Christian was arrested and detained at the jail, she does not

allege what part Boucher played in the alleged violations of her

constitutional rights. The complaint does not indicate whether

Christian alleges a claim against Boucher based on his official

actions as a bail commissioner or on some other unexpressed

actions or conduct. Rather than speculate about the nature of

Christian’s claim against Boucher, it would be more appropriate

to give her an opportunity to amend her complaint to state the

claim clearly. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss

(document no. 25) is terminated without prejudice to refile, if

appropriate, after the plaintiff files an amended complaint. The

plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (document no. 32) is

denied as moot.

The plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to file an amended

complaint in which she states clearly her claim, and the factual

basis for the claim, against defendant Paul Bouchard. An amended

complaint shall be filed on or before June 5, 2006. If the

plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint by that date, 

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 33 Filed 05/25/06 Page 4 of 5
5

her claim against Paul Boucher alleged in the current complaint

will be dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 25, 2006

cc: Nicole Corin Christian, pro se

Charles P. Bauer, Esquire

Frank H. Olmstead, Esquire

Nancy J. Smith, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 33 Filed 05/25/06 Page 5 of 5