UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marissa Michaud Young and Archie Young

v. Civil No. 23-cv-539-SE-TSM Opinion No.

Town Line Village Cooperative, Inc.; Jonathan Springer; and Hodges Co.1

O R D E R

Before the court is the Complaint (doc. no. 1) and a motion

to enjoin the issuance of a writ of possession and disbursal of

escrowed rent payments (doc. no. 3) from the New Hampshire

Circuit Court, 2d Circuit, District Division – Plymouth

(“Plymouth District Court”), filed by pro se plaintiff Marissa

Michaud Young, naming herself and Archie Young as the

plaintiffs. The Youngs claim that they were denied a hearing and

an impartial judge in the state court eviction proceeding filed

by their Campton, New Hampshire mobile home park’s owner, Town

Line Village Cooperative, Inc. (“Town Line”). The Youngs have

named Town Line; Town Line’s counsel, Attorney Jonathan

Springer; and “Hodges Co.” (an entity the plaintiffs allege

collects the rent for Town Line) as the defendants in this

federal case. The Complaint is before this court for preliminary

1 The clerk is directed to update the docket to include all of the parties as indicated in this Order’s caption. review under LR 4.3(d), and the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin the

state court from issuing the writ of possession and disbursing

rent payments is here for disposition on an expedited basis.

Background

The Youngs live in a home in a mobile home park owned by

Town Line in Campton. Town Line filed an eviction action against

them for nonpayment of rent in 2023 in Plymouth District Court.

See Town Line Vill. Coop. v. Young, No. 469-2023-LT-00046 (N.H.

Cir. Ct., 2d Cir., Dist. Div.-Plymouth) (“Eviction Case”). The

court in that action entered a default judgment on June 29,

2023, which the Youngs appealed. See

Case Summary Index No.

21; see also Doc. No. 1-3, at 9. While their appeal was pending,

the Youngs paid rent into the Plymouth District Court. See N.H.

Cir. Ct., Dist. Div., R. 5.7(B). The New Hampshire Supreme Court

dismissed their appeal on August 30, 2023. See Town Line Vill.

Coop. v. Young, No. 2023-0440 (N.H. Aug. 30, 2023); see also

Doc. No. 1-3, at 9. The Youngs filed a motion to reconsider, and

the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied that motion on December

8, 2023. See Doc. No. 1-3, at 9.

On December 11, 2023, the Youngs filed a motion in Plymouth

District Court to stay the issuance of the writ of possession

and the disbursal of the rent payments. See Doc. No. 1-3, at 1,

10. On December 14, 2023, that court denied their motion to stay

2 and granted Town Line’s request for disbursal of the rent

payments. See Doc. No. 1-3, at 9, 10.

The plaintiffs filed this federal case on December 14,

2023, claiming a wrongful eviction and violations of their right

to due process in the state eviction case. They have moved this

court to stop the Plymouth District Court from issuing the writ

of possession and disbursing their escrowed rent payments.

Preliminary Review Standard

This court conducts a preliminary review of complaints

filed in forma pauperis. See

(e)(2). Claims may

be dismissed sua sponte, if the court lacks jurisdiction, a

defendant is immune from the relief sought, or the complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

In undertaking this review, the court is mindful that pro se

complaints must be construed liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (per curiam).

Discussion

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The threshold issue that must be decided in this case is

whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider

the plaintiffs’ claims. “Federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

, 377 (1994), and “[w]ithout jurisdiction[,] the court

cannot proceed at all in any cause,” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

Better Env’t,

, (1998). Lack of subject matter

jurisdiction can be raised by the court sua sponte at any point

during a lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also

Progressive Consumers Fed. Credit Union v. United States,

(1st Cir. 1996).

Liberally construed, the Complaint asserts claims of a

wrongful eviction and due process violations in the eviction

proceeding. While they have not named any defendants that are

government officials, their claims appear intended to invoke

this court’s federal question jurisdiction.2 For the reasons

stated below, however, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider

their claims and cannot issue the relief they seek, which would

prevent the issuance of a writ of possession and the disbursal

of their rent payments.

II. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests this court of

jurisdiction over a federal case filed by a party to proceedings

2The individual plaintiffs and Town Line’s counsel Attorney Springer appear to be residents of New Hampshire. Town Line is a New Hampshire corporation that owns mobile home parks in New Hampshire. Hodges has a home office in New Hampshire and is alleged to own or manage properties in this state. The parties do not appear to satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

4 in state court, where the state court proceedings ended before

the federal court case commenced, and the plaintiff in the

federal case complains of injuries resulting from the state

court rulings and “‘invit[es] district court review and

rejection of [the state court’s] judgments.’” Skinner v.

Switzer,

, 532 (2011) (citation omitted). Rooker-

Feldman is “quasi-jurisdictional,” in that, among federal

courts, “only the U.S. Supreme Court has authority to invalidate

state civil judgments.” Mandel v. Town of Orleans,

(1st Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

This case fits the Rooker-Feldman paradigm. Plaintiffs

filed this action seeking to undo the effect of the default

judgment in their eviction case, after the New Hampshire Supreme

Court dismissed their appeal of the default judgment. This court

lacks jurisdiction to review their due process claims

challenging the validity of the result in that proceeding, upon

which they base their request for an order preventing that state

court from issuing the writ of possession and disbursing their

rent payments. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this action

must be dismissed and their request for injunctive relief must

be denied.

5 III. Younger Abstention

Alternatively, to the extent that the writ of possession

has not yet issued, and the appeal period remains pending with

respect to the December 14, 2023 orders of the Plymouth District

Court, this court must abstain from further consideration of any

of the plaintiffs’ claims and dismiss this action. Under Younger

v. Harris,

(1971), federal courts are generally

required to abstain from enjoining or issuing declaratory relief

that would affect ongoing civil proceedings that “‘implicate a

State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its

courts,’” absent extraordinary circumstances, Sirva Relocation,

LLC v. Richie,

(1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Sprint

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,

(2013)), if the

proceeding (1) is “judicial in nature,” (2) “implicates

important state interests,” and (3) provides an adequate

opportunity for the federal plaintiff to assert his federal

claims or defenses. Sirva Relocation,

; see also

Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Medley,

(1st

Cir. 2009). The few extraordinary circumstances where abstention

is not required are state proceedings brought in bad faith for

purposes of harassment, state cases in which the state forum

provides inadequate protection of federal rights, and

circumstances where the state statute at issue in the

proceedings is “‘flagrantly and patently violative of express

6 constitutional prohibitions.’” Sirva Relocation,

(citations omitted).

Here, the underlying state proceeding involves the issuance

of a writ of possession and the disbursal of escrowed rent

payments after the entry of a default judgment. That state court

proceeding implicates the state’s ability to enforce its orders.

The Younger abstention doctrine precludes this court’s

consideration of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims for

relief, as such review here would interfere with that important

state court interest. Moreover, the plaintiffs have had an

adequate opportunity to raise the same issues in the state case,

and they can appeal adverse orders to the New Hampshire Supreme

Court. None of the exceptions to Younger abstention apply.3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stop the issuance

of the writ of possession and the disbursal of the rent payments

3 Because this action must be dismissed, and the requested relief must be denied, for the reasons stated in this Order, this court need not consider whether the Anti-Injunction Act,

provides an independent, alternative basis for dismissing the case and denying the relief requested. Cf. Rovito v. N. Andover Avalon, Inc No. 23-cv-11404-DJC,

, at *1,

, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2023) (Anti-Injunction Act prevented federal court from enjoining pending state landlord tenant action, where tenant had claimed in federal court that she was being wrongfully evicted and that the state court had violated her due process rights by not scheduling a hearing).

7 is DENIED, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Samantha Elliott United States District Judge

December 20, 2023

cc: Marissa Lynn Michaud Young, pro se Archie Young, pro se

8