[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-639333-105":59,"doc-detail-639333-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","uscourts-nhd-1_25-cv-00458-0","USCOURTS-nhd-1_25-cv-00458-0","","Order from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in Jahad I. Meyers v. Paul Mistovich and others, Civil No. 25-cv-458-SE. The court grants leave to file a second amended complaint and treats the original and first amended complaints as supplements. It addresses screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court’s independent duty to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction, and the magistrate judge’s recommendations on Rooker-Feldman and abstention under Younger v. Harris. The background describes state paternity and child support proceedings involving BCSS and disputed service and genetic testing.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/uscourts-nhd-1_25-cv-00458-0/639333/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/uscourts-nhd-1_25-cv-00458-0/639333.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alexandar","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-10-22",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What procedural action did the court take regarding Meyers’s pleadings?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The court granted Meyers’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, making document no. 19-1 the operative complaint. It also construed the original and first amended complaints as supplements for Meyers’s benefit.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"On what basis did the magistrate judge recommend dismissal?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The magistrate judge concluded the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and, depending on whether the state proceedings had terminated, should abstain under Younger v. Harris.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What does the order state about the court’s screening obligations?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Because Meyers proceeds in forma pauperis, the court applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of claims in certain circumstances. The order also emphasizes the court’s independent obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},639333,1793073056,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962090768658,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Case 1:25-cv-00458-SE-AJ Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 7  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE  \nJahad I. Meyers  \nv. Civil No. 25-cv-458-SE  \nOpinion No. 2025 DNH 138  \nPaul Mistovich, et al.  \nO R D E R  \nPro se plaintiff Jahad I. Meyers, appearing in forma pauperis, filed a complaint in this court against several defendants involved in his paternity and child support proceedings in New Hampshire state [court. Doc. no.](court. Doc. no. 1. The magistrate judge)[ 1](court. Doc. no. 1. The magistrate judge)[. The magistrate judge](court. Doc. no. 1. The magistrate judge) conducted a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d) . She issued a Report and Recommendation dated November 18, 2025, in which she concluded that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine and, if it did in the event that the state-court proceedings had not yet terminated, the court should abstain from hearing the case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). [Doc. no.](Doc. no. 10)[ 10](Doc. no. 10) .  \nIn response to the R&R, Meyers filed an amended complaint ([doc. no.](doc. no. 12)[ 12](doc. no. 12)), an objection to the R&R ([doc. no.](doc. no. 13)[ 13](doc. no. 13)), and a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint ([doc. no](doc. no). 19). He also filed motions to freeze the garnishment of his wages to satisfy child support and medical support obligations, which were the result of the underlying court proceeding that forms the basis of Meyers’s claims in this case. Doc. nos. 14 and 16. He further requested expedited consideration of all of his filings. Doc. no. 18.  \n1 See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) .  \nCase 1:25-cv-00458-SE-AJ Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 7  \nThe court grants Meyers’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Therefore, the operative complaint is now document no. 19-1. For Meyers’s benefit, the court will construe Meyers’s original complaint ([doc. no.](doc. no. 1)[ 1](doc. no. 1)) and his first amended complaint ([doc. no](doc. no). 12) as supplements to his second amended complaint.2  \nMeyers’s second amended complaint is also subject to the provisions of § 1915 because he is proceeding in forma pauperis. Under that statute, the court shall dismiss one or more claims if, among other things, a defendant is immune from the relief sought or the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See § 1915(e)(2) .“Further, in addition to the statutory screening requirements under § 1915, the court has an independent obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its subject matter jurisdiction.” Smith v. Massachusetts Prob. & Fam. Ct.  \n-Suffolk Div., No. 25-CV-12924-ADB, 2025 WL 2987724, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2025)(citing McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004)) .  \nBackground  \nI.  Factual Allegations  \nMeyers’s claims arise out of child support proceedings in New Hampshire state court. Specifically, on November 19, 2021, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services’Bureau of Child Support Services (“BCSS”) filed a Petition to Determine Paternity and Enforce the Obligation of Support against Meyers in the 8th Circuit-Family Division-Keene, Docket No. 649-2021-DM-00324. BCSS claimed to have served Meyers with court documents  \n2 The factual allegations in Meyers’s second amended complaint concerning his underlying court proceedings are bare and insufficient to make out a claim for relief absent reference to the allegations in the original complaint and first amended complaint.  \nCase 1:25-cv-00458-SE-AJ Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 7  \nby mail. Defendant Paul Mistovich, an attorney for BCSS, successfully moved to deem service valid. Despite the court’s ruling, Meyers alleges that he was not served with the relevant documents.  \nA June 2, 2022 “Stipulation/P","cbCaif2DN90aSrTt","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaif2DN90aSrTt","pdf",257342,"English","# Background\n## Factual Allegations\n## R&R","[{\"question\":\"What procedural action did the court take regarding Meyers’s pleadings?\",\"answer\":\"The court granted Meyers’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, making document no. 19-1 the operative complaint. It also construed the original and first amended complaints as supplements for Meyers’s benefit.\"},{\"question\":\"On what basis did the magistrate judge recommend dismissal?\",\"answer\":\"The magistrate judge concluded the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and, depending on whether the state proceedings had terminated, should abstain under Younger v. Harris.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the order state about the court’s screening obligations?\",\"answer\":\"Because Meyers proceeds in forma pauperis, the court applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of claims in certain circumstances. The order also emphasizes the court’s independent obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.\"}]","USCOURTS-nhd-1_25-cv-00458-0 | PDF",1792703099,18]