UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ralph Holder

v. Civil No. 06-cv-162-JD

Patricia Frim and

State of New Hampshire

O R D E R

Ralph Holder, who is proceeding pro se, seeks injunctive and

declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from the State of New

Hampshire on claims that challenge the constitutionality of state

divorce and custody proceedings. His claims against Patricia

Frim were dismissed on August 1, 2006, and Holder moves for

reconsideration of that decision. The state moves to dismiss the

claims against it. 

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Patricia Frim, who served as the guardian ad litem during

Holder’s divorce and custody proceedings, moved to dismiss his

claims against her on grounds of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res

judicata, and immunity. The court granted the motion based on

three of the four grounds she raised. Holder moves for

reconsideration, contending that the court misconstrued the facts

underlying his claims and misapplied the law.

Case 1:06-cv-00162-JD Document 37 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 5
2

The court has reviewed Holder’s motion and memorandum of

law, Frim’s objection, and the court’s order dismissing the

claims against Frim. Holder’s motion and memorandum merely

restate his disagreement with the state court system and those

who participated in his divorce and custody proceedings. For the

reasons stated in the court’s order issued on August 1, 2006,

Holder’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

II. Motion to Dismiss

In his complaint, Holder challenges the actions and rulings

in his divorce and custody proceedings in state court. He finds

fault with the guardian ad litem’s role in the proceedings and

her recommendations which were implemented by the court. He also

criticizes Marital Master Harriet J. Fishman who presided over

the first state court proceedings and accuses her of racial bias

and unethical conduct. He asserts that Frim and “the Family

Court Division have repeatedly violated the petitioner’s lawfully

protected state and federal constitutional rights to Due process

[sic] and the Equal Protection Clauses.” Compl. ¶ 24. He

further alleges that the court delayed granting a modification of

the custody order, that New Hampshire Judge Lewis “sought to

criminalize his exercise of his constitutional rights,” that the

“State of New Hampshire Judicial Conduct and Attorney Discipline

Case 1:06-cv-00162-JD Document 37 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 5
3

Committee acted in complicity with [Frim’s] criminal violations

of the law,” and that the state court repeatedly denied his

motions and refused to remove Frim. He faults the state courts

for favoring mothers in custody proceedings and for refusing to

set limits on “Family Court Judges and Marital Masters.” He

states that his First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights were violated by Frim, Judge Gerald Taube,

Marital Master Fishman, Arthur Hilson, and “unidentified others.” 

He also contends that the custody orders were racially

discriminatory. Holder seeks only unspecified injunctive and

declaratory relief. 

Holder filed a proposed order with his complaint in which he

lists a variety of remedies, including injunctions against the

Family Court Division to prevent transfer of minority students to

other school districts based on race, to require the court and

Frim to give him Frim’s evaluation files from the state court

proceedings, and to require all child custody decisions not to be

based on race or to prefer the religion of one parent. He also

proposes injunctions to require the state to comply with the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, to preclude use of guardians ad litem

in custody proceedings, to grant parents the right to legal

counsel in custody proceedings, and to require a criminal

investigation of Frim.

Case 1:06-cv-00162-JD Document 37 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 5
4

Despite mention in the complaint and proposed order of other

potential parties, the only defendants in this suit were Frim and

the State of New Hampshire. All claims against Frim have been

dismissed. Therefore, only claims against the state remain. 

Section 1983, however, provides no remedy against a state sued

directly. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S.

43, 69 (1997). 

In addition, all of the custody issues of which Holder

complains and which are the bases of Holder’s claims here have

been resolved in the state courts. He has not alleged any

current state court proceedings involving him. Because Holder no

longer has any personal stake in the outcome of the issues he

raises, there is no actual case or controversy for the court to

decide. See Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 2006);

Barstow v. Shea, 196 F. Supp. 2d 141, 146 (D. Conn. 2002). In

the absence of an actual case or controversy, this court lacks

jurisdiction to consider these claims. Therefore, the remaining

claims against the state are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the State of New Hampshire’s

motion to dismiss (document no. 30) is granted. The plaintiff’s

objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling on his motion to

Case 1:06-cv-00162-JD Document 37 Filed 09/06/06 Page 4 of 5
5

compel (document no. 26) has been considered under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 72(a), and no modification of the magistrate

judge’s ruling is appropriate. The plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 31) is denied. 

Patricia Frim’s motion to consolidate (document no. 27) is

terminated as moot.

The clerk of court shall enter judgment in accordance with

this order and the order issued on August 1, 2006, and close the

case. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 6, 2006

cc: Christopher D. Hawkins, Esquire

Andrew B. Livernois, Esquire

Ralph Holder, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00162-JD Document 37 Filed 09/06/06 Page 5 of 5