UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory G. Carson,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 06-cv-417-PB

Town of Londonderry and

Londonderry Town Moderator,

Defendants

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s complaint raises important issues regarding

electioneering activities on public property. He says the Town

of Londonderry has arbitrarily imposed restrictions on the use of

public property for the display of political signs, requiring

that such signs be held by a natural person, and that they not be

affixed or attached to public property, or be “free standing.” 

State law provides that “No political advertising shall be placed

on or affixed to public property including highway rights of way

or private property without the owner’s consent.” N.H. Rev.

Stat. Ann. ch. 664:17. Implicitly, “consent” includes reasonable

limitations. And, First Amendment considerations may require

that any limitations meet constitutional standards.

Case 1:06-cv-00417-PB Document 3 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Plaintiff suggests, however, that the Londonderry

restrictions may not qualify as reasonable time, manner, and

place restrictions under the First Amendment, and, he plausibly

notes that citizens with disabilities will no doubt require

reasonable accommodations under the American with Disabilities

Act, since they might not be able to “hold” a sign without the

aid of supports or stands affixed to the ground. (But plaintiff

does not claim to be disabled himself, so lacks standing to raise

that issue.)

Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order,

requiring Londonderry to permit him to affix free-standing

electioneering signs on public property, is necessarily denied. 

First, although, acting pro se, plaintiff still must comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. He has not done so, in that

he has not certified in writing the efforts, if any, which may

have been made to give notice [to the defendants, or opponents of

the TRO request] [or] reasons supporting [a] claim that notice

should not be required. And, he has not complied with Local Rule

65.1, in that he has not filed “a proposed order, consistent with

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, for the court to

consider.”

Case 1:06-cv-00417-PB Document 3 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 4
3

While it would not be fair to resolve substantive issues

without first providing the defendants with notice and an

opportunity to be heard, plaintiff does not seem to present a

compelling case with respect to the likelihood of his succeeding

on the merits, a major factor in deciding whether to order

injunctive relief. The issues that plaintiff raises are likely

far more complex than his bare complaint suggests, and it is not

self-evident that the alleged restrictions fail to pass

constitutional muster, even assuming the public property at issue

qualifies as a traditional public forum with respect to

electioneering activity.

Given that polling places in New Hampshire will be closing

in approximately 90 minutes, likely rendering this case moot, the

court will, in plaintiff’s interest, dismiss the complaint and

direct the Clerk to return his substantial filing fee, but,

without prejudice to his refiling an amended complaint, if he

chooses to do so, after considering the merits of his claim and

issues of mootness, and after having an opportunity to engage in

unhurried and substantive legal research.

Case 1:06-cv-00417-PB Document 3 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 4
1 RSA 664:18 provides, in part:

Any . . . voter may make complaint in writing to the

attorney general of any violation of any of the provisions of

this chapter.

I. Upon receipt of such complaint, the attorney general or

his designee shall review the complaint, and where sufficient

evidence of a violation is presented, conduct investigations to

determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred.

II. . . . the attorney general is empowered, if [she]

determines that a provision of this chapter has been violated,

to:

(a) Issue an order requiring the violator to cease and

desist from his or her violation.

4

Plaintiff is reminded, however, that RSA 664:181 provides an

effective opportunity for relief in the nature of a complaint to

and, if warranted, an investigation by the New Hampshire Attorney

General with respect to claimed violations of New Hampshire’s

Election Laws.

Conclusion

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied. Case

dismissed without prejudice to refiling an Amended Complaint. 

Clerk shall return plaintiffs’ filing fee.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

November 7, 2006

cc: Gregory G. Carson, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00417-PB Document 3 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 4