1In addition to naming the New Hampshire Supreme Court

itself as a defendant to this action, Graham names each of the

individual Justices of that Court as defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Melvin Graham

v. Civil No. 08-cv-315-PB

New Hampshire Supreme Court, et al.1

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Melvin Graham, who has filed a complaint

(document no. 1) alleging that his due process rights have been

violated by the defendants, Justices of the New Hampshire Supreme

Court (“NHSC”). The matter is before me for preliminary review

to determine, among other things, whether this Court has subject

matter jurisdiction over this matter. See United States District

Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2); 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(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

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 7 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 6
2

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

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

Melvin Graham is an inmate at the Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility, serving a sentence for four 1995 sexual

assault convictions. Graham claims that these convictions are

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 7 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 6
2Graham, in his complaint, details a number of errors he

alleges were made in his state criminal trial and appellate

proceedings. Because I find that we lack subject matter

jurisdiction, regardless of the substance of the errors alleged

by Graham, I decline to reiterate the specifics of those claims

here.

3

invalid due to errors made by his trial and appellate attorneys,

as well as the trial court and the NHSC.2 Graham states that he

has raised a number of challenges to his criminal convictions in

the New Hampshire Superior Courts without success. He has

appealed these matters to the NHSC. The NHSC has either

substantively denied him relief, or has declined to accept his

appeals. Graham now alleges that the NHSC, by failing to reverse

the errors he alleges were made in his case in the Superior

Courts, has deprived him of his due process right to have trial

errors corrected. Specifically, Graham cites N.H. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 490:4, which grants jurisdiction to the NHSC to, among

other things, “prevent and correct errors and abuses” in the

lower state courts. Graham further alleges that the NHSC’s

refusal to correct what he claims are plain errors reflects tacit

condonation of a collusion that exists between various state

agencies to deny Graham his civil rights.

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 7 Filed 01/30/09 Page 3 of 6
4

Discussion

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which precludes “lower

federal courts . . . from exercising appellate jurisdiction over

final state-court judgments,” this Court may not exercise

jurisdiction over this matter. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459,

463 (2006) (affirming principles established in D.C. Ct. App. v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,

263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies

to cases where “the losing party in state court filed suit in

federal court after the state proceedings ended, complaining of

an injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review

and rejection of that judgment.” Galibois v. Fisher, 174 Fed.

Appx. 579, 580 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S.

459, 466 (2006) and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., 544

U.S. 280, 291 (2005)). Rooker-Feldman further forecloses federal

court jurisdiction over claims that are inextricably intertwined

with claims already adjudicated in a state court proceeding. 

See Mills v. Harmon Law Offices, 344 F.3d 42, 44 (1st Cir. 2003);

Wilson v. Shumway, 264 F.3d 120, 125 (1st Cir. 2001); Sheehan v.

Marr, 207 F.3d 35, 39-40 & n.4 (1st Cir. 2000); Wang v. N.H. Bd.

of Registration in Med., 55 F.3d 698, 703 (1st Cir. 1995). “A

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 7 Filed 01/30/09 Page 4 of 6
5

federal claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court

claims if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the

state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Sheehan, 207

F.3d at 40 (internal citations omitted). 

Applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to this case, I find

that, in spite having couched his claim as a due process

violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Graham asks this

Court to overrule the NHSC by finding that they have egregiously

refused or failed to correct what plaintiff’s perceive to have

been errors made during his trial and appeal. In order to grant

the plaintiff the relief he seeks, this Court would have to

determine that the NHSC incorrectly decided a matter before it

and thereby pass judgment on the NHSC’s rulings and decisions as

though this Court were an appropriate appellate venue for cases

lost in the NHSC, which it is not. Additionally, to the extent

that Graham’s constitutional claim has not been specifically

litigated in the state courts, I find, given the facts asserted

in the complaint, and the relief Graham seeks, that this issue is

inextricably intertwined with those presented to the NHSC. 

Accordingly, Rooker-Feldman applies, and deprives this Court of

jurisdiction over this action.

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 7 Filed 01/30/09 Page 5 of 6
6

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that this matter be

dismissed. Any objections to this report and recommendation must

be filed within ten (10) 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: January 30, 2009

cc: Melvin Graham, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 7 Filed 01/30/09 Page 6 of 6