A federal civil-rights lawsuit arising from Portsmouth’s 2024 attempt to remove former Planning Board member James Hewitt will move forward in part after a ruling by U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock Jr.
The case, brought by James and Elizabeth Hewitt against the City of Portsmouth and several city officials, stems from a February 2024 City Council hearing over whether Hewitt should be removed from the Planning Board for alleged malfeasance. City Attorney Susan Morrell argued at the time that Hewitt’s conduct, including emails about development projects, showed bias or prejudgment inconsistent with the standards expected of land-use board members.
Hewitt’s attorney, Jeremy Eggleton, disputed that characterization during the 2024 hearing, arguing that the city’s case was based on protected speech and political disagreement rather than misconduct in office. The City Council ultimately did not remove Hewitt after the motion to find malfeasance failed on a 7-1 vote.
The lawsuit, filed in 2025 and later moved to federal court, alleges malicious civil prosecution, defamation, emotional distress, enhanced damages, and First Amendment retaliation. According to a published summary of Judge Woodcock’s June ruling, the court dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed, including malicious prosecution, defamation, James Hewitt’s negligent emotional-distress claim, and First Amendment retaliation claims against individual officials. The First Amendment claim against the city itself and some other claims were dismissed.
The ruling does not decide whether the Hewitts’ allegations are true. At this stage, the court determines whether the complaint states legally plausible claims that may proceed to discovery.
One issue in the case is the relationship between two New Hampshire land-use statutes. RSA 673:13 allows removal of appointed land-use board members after a public hearing and written findings of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. RSA 673:14 governs when a land-use board member must be disqualified from participating in a particular matter because of a conflict of interest or similar concern.
The Hewitts argue that Portsmouth used recusal-type concerns to justify a removal proceeding. City officials have defended the 2024 action as an effort to protect the integrity of Planning Board proceedings and avoid bias in quasi-judicial matters.
The case is now expected to proceed into discovery, where the parties may seek documents, communications, and testimony related to the decision to pursue the removal hearing and the preparation of the city’s charging document. No finding of liability has been made.