Blaisdell v. Lapierre et al

Filing 9

ORDER the amended complaint shall be considered a complaint in a new case 8 Amended Complaint,. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(mxm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

George Blaisdell
v.

Civil No. 10-cv-432-PB

Elizabeth Lapierre et al.

O R D E R
Plaintiff George Blaisdell filed his initial complaint
(doc. no. 1) in this case on September 24, 2010.

After

Blaisdell failed to comply with this court’s order to amend his
complaint, the matter was dismissed, without prejudice, on May
20, 2011 (doc. no. 6), for failure to file a complaint that
complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).1
It has now come to the court’s attention that plaintiff
filed a “First Amended Complaint” (doc. no. 8) in this matter on
September 23, 2011, four months after the action was dismissed.
Because the case was closed, no action was taken on the
complaint.

The court finds that the first amended complaint

should have been construed and docketed as the complaint in a
new action.
1

Accordingly, the court so construes plaintiff’s

The order of dismissal also denied Blaisdell’s motion
seeking until September 24, 2011, to file a “new” complaint in
this matter.

amended complaint (doc. no. 8), and directs the Clerk’s office
to docket it as the complaint in a new action, using September
23, 2011, as the date the complaint was filed, and to proceed
with the case as though it had been so docketed in the first
instance.

Upon receipt of the necessary filing fee or the

granting of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the
matter will be forwarded to the magistrate judge for preliminary
review pursuant to United States District Court District of New
Hampshire Local Rule 4.3(d)(1).
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
October 1, 2012
cc:

George Blaisdell, pro se

LBM:jba

2