Nashua civil judges need to remove their bias against pro se litigants
I have spent three years in the Nashua South civil court addressing records disputes with the City of Nashua. During this time, I've gained experience formulating an opinion on the impartiality of the Nashua judges in hearing cases brought against Cities.
Another Nashua citizen filed a right-to-know petition against the Town of Conway in June 2023 for failing to provide records.
Judge Temple handled the case, and the Town of Conway filed a motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed several claims, but others remained to be heard in a merits hearing. On July 12, 2023, the Town of Conway filed a motion to award attorney fees. It was a puzzling motion as the Judge had yet to hear the case's merits, and the standard for awarding attorney's fees is very high. How do you win fees without hearing the case?
When judges go on vacation, the other Judge will issue orders on motions, objections, or responses to keep the case moving. At the end of July 2023, Judge Temple was on vacation, so on July 25th, Judge Colburn ruled on the motion to award attorney fees. Judge Colburn ruled to grant the Town of Conway's request for the Citizen to pay $675 in legal fees to Conway. It was a frightening ruling for citizens working hard to access public records, especially since this Judge had just issued an order on July 7, 2023, claiming I was acting as an attorney. Without a fair hearing, she slammed the Citizen with fees.
This action created more filings and another hearing, during which the pro se citizen presented to Judge Temple that it was unfair and improper to impose fees on a plaintiff when the Court had not held a merits hearing. On September 8, 2023, Judge Temple reversed the Court's order and ruled that fees would only be determined once the case is heard. The case remains open and is awaiting a merits hearing. Judges have a duty, according to “cannons," to respect the inexperience of pro se litigants and help them understand the legal process (not the law), but Nashua judges do not do this.
It is concerning that a judge ruling on behalf of another judge's case did not read the short case file to educate herself on the case. Was this the result of an overworked Judge or a deliberate action to smackdown the pro se litigants seeking records? The standard for awarding attorneys' fees in RTK cases requires proof of bad faith, vexatious, or frivolous actions. The awarding of fees is rare.
Judge Colburn's order firmly told pro-se litigants to get out of the Nashua court system. The Nashua Court will not process records petitions per the law and rule fairly and impartially.
Our two civil judges in Nashua, Judge Colburn, and Judge Temple, specialize in drug court and criminal matters. Their strengths and interest in other civil matters aren't there, and drugs and violent crimes will trump records matters every time. Undoubtedly, it is difficult for judges to be "jack of all trades" adjudicators skilled in every area of law. To compound this matter, our 400-member House of Representatives creates a vast amount of legislation each year. Judges must stay on top of these new laws and prepare for legal challenges that can require writing new case law.
Nashua is ready for more judges willing to address civil matters with the weight and priority they deserve. Given the state of this country and the significant lack of media coverage for local governments, the court system should recognize the public's heightened awareness of governmental accountability. We need the Courts to share our public record interests, as our NH Constitution specifically recognizes, and permit us to challenge the open, accessible, accountable, and responsiveness to access our public records. We are not vexatious, frivolous, or bad-faith citizens out to create burdens or harm anyone. We are citizens engaged and vested in our communities and our civic duties.