UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-492-JL

William Albrecht

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Kevin Hall’s damages action (document

no. 1), alleging that defendant, the Cheshire County Attorney,

violated his rights by entering a nolle prosequi in Hall’s

criminal case during trial. As Hall is a prisoner, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); United States

District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”)

4.3(d)(2)(A).

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. LR

4.3(d)(2). In conducting the preliminary review, the Court

Case 1:08-cv-00492-JL Document 16 Filed 04/24/09 Page 1 of 4
2

construes pro se pleadings liberally, however inartfully pleaded. 

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, ___, 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

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 id. This review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair

and meaningful consideration.

Background

In May of 2005, Cheshire County Attorney William Albrecht

commenced a prosecution against Hall for felony criminal

mischief. During the trial, after four witnesses had testified,

Albrecht entered a nolle prosequi in the case, dismissing the

Case 1:08-cv-00492-JL Document 16 Filed 04/24/09 Page 2 of 4
3

case against Hall. Hall complains now that the dismissal of his

case prior to Hall being allowed to present witnesses or a

defense violated Albrecht’s duty to expose the truth. 

Discussion

“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 v. Plymouth County Super. Ct., 511 F. Supp. 2d 203, 206 (D.

Mass. 2007) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420

(1976)). The decision whether or not to dismiss an indictment

against a particular defendant is well within the scope of a

prosecutor’s duties occurring during the judicial phase of a

prosecution. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n.33. 

Hall claims a violation of his rights occasioned by

Albrecht’s failure to complete the criminal mischief prosecution

he initiated against Hall. As stated above, however, the

decision to dismiss an indictment is one that is shielded from

legal challenge by prosecutorial immunity, and I recommend

dismissal of this action on that basis. 

Case 1:08-cv-00492-JL Document 16 Filed 04/24/09 Page 3 of 4
4

Conclusion

As I have found that the sole claim in this action seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief, I recommend dismissal of this action. See LR

4.3(d)(2)(A)(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: April 24, 2009

cc: Kevin Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00492-JL Document 16 Filed 04/24/09 Page 4 of 4