1Cheshire County is the only defendant listed in the caption

of the complaint. Liberally construing the complaint, however, I

find that Hall intended to name Barbara A. Hogan, Clerk of the

Cheshire County Superior Court, Cheshire County Attorney William

Albrecht, and New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Sullivan as

defendants to this action. I will consider this complaint to

have named these defendants for all purposes.

2Hall has filed a complaint (document no. 1) and an addendum

to the complaint (document no. 13). Both of these documents will

be considered, in the aggregate, to be the complaint in this

matter for all purposes.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-176-JL

Cheshire County, et al.1

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Kevin Hall’s complaint (document nos. 1

and 13)2, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary

damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights by

the defendants. As Hall is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, the matter is before me for preliminary review to

determine, among other things, whether the complaint states any

claim upon which relief might be granted or whether Hall seeks

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 9
2

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; United States District Court

District of New Hampshire Local Rule 4.3(d)(2)(A). For the

reasons explained herein, I recommend dismissal of this action in

its entirety.

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when an incarcerated

plaintiff commences an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the

magistrate judge is directed to conduct a preliminary review. 

Id. In conducting the preliminary review, the Court construes

pro se pleadings liberally, however inartfully pleaded. See

Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007)

(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) 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.” See

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003) (noting that

courts may construe pro se pleadings so as to avoid

inappropriately stringent rules and unnecessary dismissals of

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 9
3

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

All of the factual assertions made by a pro se 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. 

Background

Kevin Hall is presently incarcerated at the Sing Sing

Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York. He has previously

been incarcerated in a number of New Hampshire county and state

correctional institutions. This action arises out of incidents

allegedly occurring while Hall was confined at the Cheshire

County House of Corrections, during Hall’s Cheshire County

Superior Court criminal trial, and stemming from the

administration of the estate of Hall’s mother after her March

2007 death. 

Hall’s complaint, and the exhibits addended thereto, include

significant detail describing each allegation made by Hall, as

well as a great deal of biographical information about Hall. For

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 9
4

purposes of clarity, however, I will summarize the factual claims

made by Hall, and discuss only the specifics of each claim as

they are relevant to my consideration of and recommendations in

this matter. 

Discussion

I. The Claims

In his complaint, Hall sets out eleven separate counts as

grounds for relief. These claims fall, essentially, into three

categories, as listed below:

A. Claims Alleging Failure to Issue a Writ

Hall states that he has attempted, since 1998, to file

lawsuits in the Cheshire County Superior Court, but on a number

of occasions has not been provided with the writ necessary to

initiate his action. Specifically, Hall sought to sue: (1)

several Cheshire County Department of Corrections employees for

falsifying information and testimony against Hall in order to

deprive him of his rights, (2) Cheshire County Attorney William

Albrecht for maliciously prosecuting Hall, (3) Albrecht, again,

for seeking to have an illegal sentence imposed on Hall, (4)

Douglas Ross, Hall’s stepfather, for improperly managing Hall’s

mother’s estate and depriving Hall of rights he holds as a

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 4 of 9
3In addition to alleging a denial of access to the courts,

Hall states, in conclusory fashion, that the denial of a writ by

Hogan denied him the equal protection of the laws. It appears

that Hall intended to allege that he was denied due process of

law, not equal protection, as he makes no allegation stating or

implying that he was discriminated against as a member of a

protected class of people. This, however, is a distinction

without a difference, as I recommend the dismissal of these

claims on the basis of judicial immunity. 

5

beneficiary of the estate, (5) Hall’s sister, Christina O’Brien,

for conspiring with Ross to deprive Hall of his rights as a

beneficiary to his mother’s estate, and (6) Attorney Howard Lane,

the attorney for Hall’s mother’s estate, for abrogating his duty

to protect Hall’s interests as a beneficiary of his mother’s

estate. In each case, Hall claims that he sought the issuance of

a writ in the Cheshire County Superior Court, but Barbara Hogan,

the Clerk of Court did not issue the writ, depriving him of his

right to meaningful access to the courts.3

B. Claims Alleging Failure to Criminally Prosecute

As a result of their misdeeds, Hall claims that a number of

individuals who have wronged Hall should have been prosecuted

criminally by Cheshire County Attorney William Albrecht. 

Specifically, Hall states that: (1) Albrecht refused to prosecute

three corrections officers who had provided false evidence and

testimony against Hall, (2) Albrecht refused to prosecute

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 5 of 9
4To support his failure to prosecute claim, Hall erroneously

refers to a denial of his rights as a victim of crime, to a

deprivation of the equal protection of the laws. I recommend

dismissal of these claims on the basis of prosecutorial immunity,

however, and therefore I will not address the specific

constitutional deprivations Hall alleges attended Albrecht’s

failure to prosecute.

6

corrections officers who had intentionally endangered Hall by

providing him with razors and placing him into a crumbling cell

at a time when Hall was injuring himself with sharp objects and

items he could rip from his cell, (3) Albrecht refused to

prosecute Ross for committing numerous state and federal crimes

against Hall and Hall’s mother’s estate, and (4) 

Albrecht refused to prosecute O’Brien for assisting Ross in his

criminal activities.4

C. Claim Challenging Trial Court’s Dismissal of Charges

Hall complains that the New Hampshire Superior Court judge

presiding over his trial erroneously dismissed the criminal

charge against him mid-trial, after Albrecht sought to nolle

prosequi the charge. Hall claims that the Court’s dismissal of

the charges against him violated his Sixth Amendment right to

trial.

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 6 of 9
7

II. Judicial Immunity

Judges have absolute immunity from a suit for monetary

damages for harm allegedly incurred as a result of their judicial

acts. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). “This

immunity applies no matter how erroneous the act may have been,

how injurious its consequences, how informal the proceeding or

how malicious the motive.” Beck v. Plymouth County Super. Ct.,

511 F. Supp. 2d 203, 206 (D. Mass. 2007) (citing Cleavinger v.

Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985)); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d

1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989). This immunity applies to any judge or

judicial officer, including a judge’s clerk. See Slotnick v.

Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 1977) (holding that absolute

immunity applies to judge’s clerk). Absolute immunity applies to

any normal and routine judicial act committed within the Court’s

jurisdiction. See Stump, 435 U.S. at 359.

Here, Hall alleges that he was denied writs by the Cheshire

County Superior Court Clerk, and that he was denied his right to

trial by the Superior Court judge’s dismissal of his criminal

case. Both of these allegations attempt to assert a claim that

Hall’s rights were violated by Cheshire County Superior Court

judicial officers acting well within their jurisdiction in

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 7 of 9
8

conducting acts of a judicial nature: issuing writs and deciding

a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, both the Superior Court judge

and clerk are absolutely immune from this suit, and I recommend

dismissal of the claims alleging denial of a writ and the claim

alleging improper dismissal of criminal charges on that basis.

II. Prosecutorial Immunity

“Prosecutors are immune from litigation for those activities

closely related to the judicial phase of criminal proceedings for

actions that are within the scope of their prosecutorial duties.” 

Beck, 511 F. Supp. 2d at 206 (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.

409, 420 (1976)). The decision whether or not to initiate a

prosecution is an activity closely related to the judicial phase

of criminal proceedings, and is well within the scope of a

prosecutor’s duties. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430. 

Hall claims a violation of his constitutional rights on the

basis that Albrecht failed to criminally prosecute three Cheshire

County corrections officers, as well as Ross and O’Brien. As

explained above, the decision not to prosecute is one that is

shielded from legal challenge by prosecutorial immunity, and I

recommend dismissal of the failure to prosecute claims on that

basis.

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 8 of 9
9

Conclusion

As I have found that all of the claims alleged seek monetary

relief against defendants who are immune from such relief, I

recommend dismissal of this action in it’s entirety. See LR

4.3(d)(1)(B)(i). Any objections to this Report and

Recommendation must be filed within ten 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

Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. 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: October 14, 2008

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 14 Filed 10/14/08 Page 9 of 9