Banerjee v. Wilmot, NH, Town of

Filing 31

CORRECTED ORDER denying 24 Motion to Amend, declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice to Banerjees right to pursue her state law claims in state court. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. (Correcting the opinion number)(mm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Monica Banerjee
v.

Case No. 13-cv-203-PB
Opinion No. 2013 DNH 153

Town of Wilmot, NH
O R D E R
Monica Banerjee has filed a motion seeking permission to
amend her complaint.

Defendants oppose the motion on the ground

that the proposed amendments would be futile.

See Platten v. HG

Berm. Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 118, 132 (1st Cir. 2006) (denial
of a motion to amend warranted if amended complaint fails to
allege viable claims).

For the reasons set forth in this Order,

I deny the motion to amend and dismiss the complaint without
prejudice.
1.

Banerjee seeks to add certain factual claims to support

her dismissed procedural and substantive due process claims.
None of the new allegations affect my prior rulings that these
claims are defective and must be dismissed.
2.

Banerjee seeks to add a First Amendment claim.

Banerjee, however, has failed to plead any facts to support a
claim that defendants retaliated against her for exercising her
First Amendment rights.

Goldstein v. Galvin, 719 F.3d 16, 30

(1st Cir. 2013) (First Amendment retaliation claim requires
proof that plaintiff’s conduct was a substantial or motivating

factor in bringing about allegedly retaliatory actions).
Conclusory allegations alone are not sufficient to support a
viable claim for relief.

See Manning v. Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp.,

725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013) (conclusory allegations are to
be disregarded when ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim).
3.
claim.

Banerjee seeks to add a “class of one” equal protection
She does not come close, however, to alleging a viable

claim on this basis.

A class of one equal protection claim

requires more than general allegations that the Town has treated
the plaintiff unfairly.

Her failure to sufficiently allege that

she was treated differently from other similarly situated
landowners leaves her with a deficient claim.

See Freeman v.

Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 2013) (in a land use
case, a class of one claim requires more than conclusory
allegations that plaintiff was treated differently from other
landowners).
For the reasons set forth above, I deny the motion to amend
(Doc. No. 24).

I also decline to assert supplemental

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismiss
those claims without prejudice to Banerjee’s right to pursue her
state law claims in state court.

2

SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
November 8, 2013
cc:

Monica Banerjee, pro se
Andrew Livernois, Esq.

3