1:25-cv-00233
D.N.H.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Douglas Altland, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint in the District of New Hampshire, asserting RICO and state tort law claims against multiple defendants.
- The alleged events underlying the claims occurred solely in Pennsylvania and Delaware, primarily related to family, employment, and medical incidents.
- All named defendants reside in Pennsylvania, and none have any connection to New Hampshire; no property at issue is located in New Hampshire.
- The complaint raises concerns about statutes of limitations for potential claims under Pennsylvania and federal law.
- The matter was before the court for preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to assess jurisdiction, venue, and potential frivolousness of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue | Altland filed in NH, but cited events in PA/DE | All events, property, and defendants are in PA/DE | NH is improper venue; transfer to Middle District PA |
| Connection to NH | Does not allege basis for NH jurisdiction other than residence | No defendants, events, or property related to NH | No sufficient connection to NH; venue improper |
| Transfer vs. dismissal | Case should proceed; expresses statute of limitations concern | Should not proceed in NH; no other arguments cited | Transfer best serves interest of justice |
| Timeliness of claims | Asserts concerns about claim timeliness under various statutes | No argument by defendants at this stage | Issue reserved for transferee court |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
- Ash v. Continental Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 523 (2007) (addresses Pennsylvania statute of limitations for common law claims)
- Dickerson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (A Second Chance Inc.), 229 A.3d 27 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020) (discusses statute of repose for Pennsylvania worker’s compensation claims)