Hecking v. New Hampshire Conjunctive Parties, et al

Filing 93

///ORDER granting as to the federal claims and dismissing without prejudice state law claims 64 and 92 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dirck Hecking,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 13-cv-338-SM
Opinion No. 2013 DNH 164

New Hampshire Conjunctive
Parties, et al.,
Defendants
O R D E R
All defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint.

See document nos. 64 and 92.

Plaintiff objects.

For

the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are granted.

Discussion
Plaintiff sues numerous New Hampshire state officials,
private law firms, and attorneys alleging violations of several
state laws, as well as federal statutes.

He seeks to represent a

class of similarly situated individuals, and he asks for relief,
in part, in the form of “an emergency non-refundable in [sic]
attachable advance workmen’s compensation benefit payment of
$35,000" and additional relief exceeding a total sum of $75,000.
Defendants argue that the federal claims are time-barred and,
therefore, should be dismissed.

In the alternative, they say,

plaintiff fails to state claims under the federal statutes
invoked.1

I.

The Federal Claims
Although the complaint is nearly unintelligible and probably

runs afoul of Rule 8(a)’s requirement of a “short and plain
statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), its gist is fairly
discernable: the defendants are alleged to have defrauded
plaintiff out of a worker’s compensation award by means of
various misrepresentations and mismanagement of the state
workers’ compensation system.

The alleged misrepresentations

concern information or advice given regarding New Hampshire’s
workers’ compensation claims process, as found on an internet
website.

Plaintiff alleges, generally, that defendants’ conduct

violated several federal criminal statutes, including those
relating to mail and wire fraud, as well as the Civil Rights Act
of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Federal criminal statutes generally do not provide
independent civil causes of action, and those claims are
dismissed.

To the extent plaintiff relies on allegations of mail

1

The State defendants also argue that plaintiff’s claims
are barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Because the
claims are time-barred, the court need not address the apparently
meritorious claim preclusion issue.
2

and wire fraud to form the predicate of a civil claim under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18
U.S.C. § 1964, he fares no better.

A RICO claim is timed-barred

under the circumstances of this case, as is plaintiff’s Section
1983 claim.

Claims under Section 1983 and RICO must be filed within
three and four years, respectively, of the date when plaintiff
knew or had reason to know of the injury on which the action is
based. See Holder v. Bahan, 2011 WL 940211, at *4 (D.N.H. March
16, 2011) (Section 1983); In re McKesson Governmental Entities
Average Wholesale Price Litig., 767 F. Supp. 2d 263, 272 (D.
Mass. 2011) (RICO) (citing Agency Holding Corp. V. Malley-Duff &
Assoc., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 146 (1987)).

The relevant injury,

here, is the State’s denial of plaintiff’s workers’ compensation
claim.

The complaint ties the defendants’ alleged illegal

conduct (misrepresentations and mismanagement) to that denial,
and it seeks relief from this court in the form of a $35,000
“workmen’s compensation benefit payment.”

The court takes

judicial notice of the fact, as set forth in this court’s prior
decision in Hecking v. Barger, 2010 WL 653553 (D.N.H. Feb. 23,
2010) (Laplante, J.), that the State’s denial of plaintiff’s
claim for workers’ compensation benefits became final sometime
before or around 2007, when the New Hampshire Supreme Court

3

declined to review the decision of the Compensation Appeals
Board.

Id. at *3.

Plaintiff filed this suit in 2013, well

beyond the date he knew or should have known of his injury.
Notably, plaintiff has been down this road before.

In 2010, the

court of appeals for this circuit affirmed an order of this court
dismissing as time-barred plaintiff’s claims against officials of
the New Hampshire Department of Labor relating to matters arising
from his state workers’ compensation claim.

See March 15, 2011

Order in Hecking v. Barger, No. 10-1299, affirming 2010 WL 653553
(D.N.H. Feb. 23, 2010) (Laplante, J.).2

That plaintiff challenges information displayed on a website
through 2012 does not change the limitations calculus.

Plaintiff

has not alleged that he relied on that information (as displayed
in 2012) to his detriment.

And the fact that putative class

members may have relied on the information in 2012 is irrelevant
for purposes of determining the timeliness of plaintiff’s claims.

2

Given plaintiff’s litigation history, it is
understandable that defendants have asked this court to bar
plaintiff from filing any further suits involving or arising from
the denial of his worker’s compensation claim. Although that
request is denied at this time, plaintiff is on notice that any
further meritless suits related to the subject of this claim will
subject him to the payment of defendants’ reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs.
4

II.

State Law Claims
The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over plaintiff’s state law claims.3

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The state law claims are, therefore, dismissed.

Conclusion
Defendants’ motions to dismiss, document nos. 64 and 92, are
granted as to the federal claims.
dismissed without prejudice.

The state law claims are

The Clerk shall close the case.

And plaintiff is advised to carefully consider the advisability
of filing additional litigation in this court related to this
subject.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
November 26, 2013

3

There is no diversity jurisdiction here. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Although the complaint alleges generally that the amount
in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold, the facts, as
alleged, do not support a plausible inference of an injury
exceeding a value of $75,000. Importantly, plaintiff is not
allowed to aggregate the value of his claims with those of
putative class members for jurisdictional purposes. Zahn v.
Int’l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 301 (1973) (superseded on other
grounds by statute).
5

cc:

Dirck Hecking, pro se
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
Shawn J. Sullivan, Esq.
Susan A. Lowry, Esq.
Louis J. Britton, Esq.
Scott D. Burke, Esq.
Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.
Thomas G. Ferrini, Esq.

6