Barr v. Mara et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying as moot 9 Motion to Expedite. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Paul Barr
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-437-PB

David Mara, James Hardy,
Dennis Hogan, and FNU Crowley1

O R D E R
Before the court is plaintiff Paul Barr’s motion for an
expedited ruling (doc. no. 9) and an addendum to the complaint
(doc. no. 8), which Barr filed in response to this court’s April
26, 2013, order (doc. no. 7).

The motion seeks this court’s

expedited consideration of Barr’s claims, including those
challenging the validity of his state court conviction, which,
he asserts, resulted from collusion between the prosecutor,
defense counsel, and the state court judge, and violated his
rights to due process, a speedy trial, and a fair trial.

The

matter is before the court for preliminary review, pursuant to
1

Barr has named as defendants Manchester, New Hampshire Police
Department (“MPD”) Chief David Mara, Hillsborough County Sheriff
James Hardy, former Hillsborough County Attorney Dennis Hogan,
and MPD Officer Crowley, whose first name is unknown. In
addenda to the complaint (doc. nos. 6 and 8), Barr adds as
defendants Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney Kenneth
Perkes, Attorneys John Newman and Laurie Jirak of the New
Hampshire Public Defender, and New Hampshire Superior Court
Judge Kenneth Brown.

United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local
Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a).
In the April 26 Order (doc. no. 7), the court provided Barr
an opportunity to file an amended complaint and to show, among
other things, that his claims were actionable and not barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Barr’s filings

since April 26 have failed to state viable claims.

Nothing in

the record before this court indicates that Barr’s conviction
and sentence have been invalidated through any official action.
Moreover, the state court judge and prosecutor are immune
from Barr’s claims, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356
(1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), and the
public defender appointed to represent Barr is not a state actor
who can be sued for an alleged violation of Barr’s federal
constitutional rights, see Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,
325 (1981).

The remaining claims asserted in this action fail

to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, all claims asserted in the complaint and the
addenda are dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A, and the motion for expedited consideration (doc. no. 9)
is denied as moot.

2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
May

17, 2013

cc:

Paul Barr, pro se

3