UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Charles Hughes

v. Civil No. 08-cv-75-JL

AT&T, Inc.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff William Hughes has filed suit against AT&T,

Inc., pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations

Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, et seq. (“RICO”). Hughes alleges that

AT&T denied him phone service in an effort to oppress, threaten,

and intimidate him because he had written a manuscript

implicating AT&T in participating in illegal governmental

activity. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has paid

his filing fee, the complaint is before me for preliminary review

to determine whether this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction has

been invoked. See United States District Court District of New

Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(A). 

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when a plaintiff commences

an action pro se, the magistrate judge is directed to conduct a

preliminary review. Id. In conducting the preliminary review,

the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, however

Case 1:08-cv-00075-JL Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 1 of 5
2

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 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. 

Discussion

I. Factual Background

William Hughes moved to Concord, New Hampshire on November

5, 2007. Prior to his move, Hughes arranged to have phone

service installed by AT&T at his new home in Concord. AT&T

promised Hughes that his phone service would be operational by

Case 1:08-cv-00075-JL Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 5
3

November 8, 2007. Phone service did not start on that date. 

AT&T service personnel first did not show up to fix the problem,

and then told Hughes his service was operational when, in fact,

it was not. Hughes alleges that the lack of service was due to a

change in his home address, effected shortly before his move, as

part of a conspiracy against him orchestrated by the Central

Intelligence Agency, due to Hughes’ unpublished manuscript that

is critical of the United States government “intelligence

community.” 

 When Hughes was eventually supplied with phone service, he

alleges that AT&T provided him with an incorrect calling plan,

causing his bill to be inflated. Hughes cancelled his service. 

Hughes alleges that AT&T then participated in a conspiracy with

the “intelligence community” and the administration of President

George W. Bush to deny Hughes access to any phone service. As a

result, plaintiff spent forty-five days without home phone

service.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The

presumption is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction. Id.

Case 1:08-cv-00075-JL Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 3 of 5
4

Consequently, the burden is on the plaintiff who claims

jurisdiction to affirmatively allege jurisdiction and prove it. 

Id.; see also Bender v. Williamsport Sch. Dist, 475 U.S. 534, 541

(1986). To bring a civil action within the court’s subject

matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege that his action

either involves a federal question, or involves citizens from

different states and an amount in controversy in excess of

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. If it appears that the

courts lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, the

court is required to dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3). 

Hughes’s suit specifically alleges a cause of action under

RICO. Without any comment on the merits of the complaint, I find

that plaintiff has therefore invoked the federal question

jurisdiction of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §1331 (authorizing

District Court jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). 

III. Service 

Plaintiff is required to serve a summons and a copy of the

complaint upon a defendant to a civil action within 120 days of

the date the complaint was filed or else the court may dismiss

Case 1:08-cv-00075-JL Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 4 of 5
1Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states:

[T]he court, upon motion or on its own initiative 

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the 

action without prejudice as to that defendant or 

direct that service be effected within a specified 

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good 

cause for the failure, the court shall extend the 

time for service for an appropriate period.

2The Court’s docket in this case indicates that summons were

issued by mail on February 28, 2008.

5

the case for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).1 As of

July 21, 2008, 145 days after the complaint in this case was

filed, the plaintiff has not filed any certificate of service

indicating that the defendant has been served with a copy of the

complaint.2 In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), plaintiff

is hereby notified that this case may be dismissed without

prejudice in thirty days of the date of this Order, unless the

Court receives return of service documents or a motion to extend

time to effect service by that date.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 21, 2008

cc: William Charles Hughes, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00075-JL Document 4 Filed 07/21/08 Page 5 of 5