UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

B.K. et al.

v. Civil No. 09-cv-94-JL

Nicholas Toumpas et al.

SUMMARY ORDER

There are several motions pending in this matter, in which

the plaintiffs--“BK, “SK,” and two of their minor children--claim

their First Amendment rights were violated when the children, who

like their parents are practicing Hindi, were temporarily placed

with foster families who served them beef and took them to

Christian religious services.

Attorney Nancy S. Tierney, who represents SK, has filed a

motion to withdraw from the representation. Tierney says that

representing SK has become unreasonably difficult due to the

interference of her husband, BK. Tierney had previously

represented BK as well, but was granted leave to withdraw from

that representation when she determined that SK’s seeking legal

separation from BK, which occurred several months after this

action was filed, created a potential conflict of interest. 

Tierney now says it has recently become clear that, as relates to

this litigation, “SK is under continued pressure to change her

decisions and abide by the decisions of BK although those

Case 1:09-cv-00094-JL Document 91 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 4
decisions are not in her best interests and regardless of whether

she agrees with her directives.”

Neither SK nor the defendants have filed any response to

Tierney’s motion to withdraw. BK, however, has registered his

objection to her withdrawal in a motion seeking other relief

(described infra) and his statements serve to corroborate

Tierney’s account of her predicament. Among other things, BK 1

states that Tierney “is trying to tell the court that she knows

her client SK more than me who has been married to her for 21

years. How could [Tierney] know what SK is thinking?”

Accordingly, the court will grant Tierney leave to withdraw

from her representation of SK, both in her individual capacity

and in her capacity as the guardian of certain of her minor

children who are also named as plaintiffs here. See L.R.

83.6(d). In light of the current posture of the case, however,

Tierney cannot be granted leave to withdraw immediately.

The defendants have recently moved for summary judgment in

their favor on all of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. The

plaintiffs’ present deadline to respond to that motion is July

BK also states, inaccurately, that “[m]ost of the charges 1

[i.e., the plaintiffs’ claims for relief in this case] were

dismissed in front of [Tierney] without any objection.” While

certain of the plaintiffs’ claims against certain of the

defendants were dismissed in this court’s rulings on the

defendants’ motions to dismiss and, later, for judgment on the

pleadings, Tierney filed objections to both of those motions on

behalf of the plaintiffs.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00094-JL Document 91 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 4
10, 2012, which reflects the extension given when the court

partially allowed SK’s motion to continue. Order of June 11,

2012. SK has since filed a motion to reconsider that order to

extend the deadline to August 1, 2012. Based on the

circumstances related (for the first time) in that filing, the

court grants the motion to reconsider in part, and extends the

deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants’ summary

judgment motion to July 17, 2012. The defendants shall file

their reply, if any, by July 31, 2012. No surreply shall be

permitted.

Tierney is therefore granted leave to withdraw from the case

upon the filing of SK’s response to the summary motion. SK is

strongly advised to begin efforts to find replacement counsel

immediately, in the event the motion for summary judgment is

denied and the case proceeds to trial.

Finally, BK, who has been proceeding pro se since Tierney

withdrew from representing him, has filed a motion seeking a

“trial from the beginning of the case in a court outside of New

Hampshire and Vermont.” The stated basis for this relief is,

essentially, that the plaintiffs “have raised a voice against

racism, favoritism, and corruption in the State of New

Hampshire’s court system,” so BK “strongly believes that [the

plaintiffs] are not going to get justice in the State of New

Hampshire.” As this court explained to BK in one of its previous

3

Case 1:09-cv-00094-JL Document 91 Filed 06/22/12 Page 3 of 4
orders, however, this litigation has little if anything to do

with the proceedings in the New Hampshire state courts that led

to BK’s and SK’s temporary loss of custody over their children. 

The only claims ever raised in this court were (and are) that,

after the children were removed from their parents’ custody, they

were placed with foster families who subjected them to practices

abhorrent to the plaintiffs’ faith. In any event, BK has stated

no legally cognizable basis for transferring this case, which he

and the other plaintiffs filed here, to another jurisdiction.

As set forth above, Tierney’s motion to withdraw (document

no. 80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, SK’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 87) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part, and BK’s motion for transfer (document no. 90) is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 22, 2012

cc: B.K., pro se

Nancy Sue Tierney, Esq.

James Spencer Culp, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

4

Case 1:09-cv-00094-JL Document 91 Filed 06/22/12 Page 4 of 4