Blackmer v. Northern NH Correctional Facility, Warden et al
Filing
17
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Amend; denying as moot 11 Motion to Extend Time to Object/Respond re 1 Complaint; granting 14 Motion to Amend 1 Complaint; denying without prejudice 16 Motion for Return of Formal Request to Amend Petition. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Paul Blackmer
v.
Civil No. 12-cv-342-SM
Northern New Hampshire Correctional
Facility, Warden, et al.1
O R D E R
Before the court are four motions filed by pro se prisoner
Paul Blackmer: a motion to amend the exhibits to his complaint
(doc. no. 3), a motion to extend time for filing an objection to
a report and recommendation (doc. no. 11), a motion to amend his
complaint (doc. no. 14), and a motion for the return of a copy
of that motion to amend (doc. no. 16).
Background
Blackmer filed this action, along with a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, in September 2012.
The complaint challenges
the validity of Blackmer’s conviction and sentence and
additionally asserts that the defendant prison officials have
1
Defendants in this lawsuit are: Northern New Hampshire
Correctional Facility (“NCF”) Warden Edward Reilly; New
Hampshire Department of Corrections Commissioner William Wrenn;
NCF Capt. Lambertson, whose first name is unknown (“FNU”); NCF
Lt. FNU Masse; and NCF Officers Paul Fortier, FNU Gray, FNU
Bolla, FNU Newton, FNU Bigl, FNU Malhoat, and FNU L’Heureux.
violated Blackmer’s federal constitutional rights by: ordering
him to trim his beard, intercepting his inmate request slips,
and finding him guilty of insubordination and disrespect.
This court, on September 18, 2012, issued a report and
recommendation (doc. no. 8), recommending that the court deny
the in forma pauperis application, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), because this court previously had dismissed for
failure to state a claim three or more actions filed by
Blackmer, and Blackmer had not demonstrated that the exception
for prisoners claiming imminent danger of serious physical harm
applied in this case.
See Report and Recommendation (doc. no.
8) (Sept. 18, 2012).
On November 19, 2012, the district judge
approved that report and recommendation and ordered Blackmer, by
December 19, 2012, to pay the filing fee.
paid the fee.
Blackmer has not yet
Four motions remain pending at this time, and
those motions are addressed seriatim.
Discussion
I.
Motions to Amend
Blackmer has filed two motions seeking leave to amend his
complaint (doc. nos. 3 and 14).
The first motion (doc. no. 3)
seeks leave to add exhibits to his pleadings.
The second motion
(doc. no. 14) seeks leave to add the following list of New
2
Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) employees or
officials as defendants: New Hampshire State Prison Warden
Richard Gerry, Lester Eldridge, Chris Kench, P. Roberts, Darnell
A. Bacon, Jon Fouts, First Name Unknown (“FNU”) McGrath, FNU
Marden, FNU Sullivan, and FNU Havlock.
That motion also alleges
that: (1) defendants have denied Blackmer access to the courts
by seizing his legal papers and restricting his ability to make
copies; (2) defendants have violated his First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in punitive
segregation in retaliation for his refusal to shave and for his
use of words deemed disrespectful by prison officials; and (3)
defendants are incarcerating him unlawfully, insofar as Blackmer
maintains that his conviction and sentence were unlawful.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), motions for leave to
amend a complaint should be freely granted, as justice requires.
The court finds that the interests of justice and judicial
efficiency are promoted by granting both motions to amend the
complaint at this time, so that all claims Blackmer seeks to
assert in this case may be asserted in one action.
Accordingly,
both motions to amend (doc. nos. 3 and 14) are granted.
3
II.
Motion to Extend Time
On October 30, 2012, Blackmer filed a motion (doc. no. 11),
seeking to extend time to file a response to the September 18,
2012, report and recommendation (doc. no. 8).
Before this court
ruled on that motion, Blackmer timely objected to the report and
recommendation, see Obj. (doc. no. 13), and the district judge,
thereafter, approved that report and recommendation, see Order
(doc. no. 15).
The motion to extend time (doc. no. 11) is
therefore denied as moot.
III. Motion for Return of Motion to Amend
In his motion to return documents (doc. no. 16), Blackmer
has requested that, if the court does not grant his second
motion to amend, the court return a copy of that motion to him,
including a copy of the exhibits that he filed with the motion.
The exhibits at issue include more than a hundred pages of
original “inmate” or “grievant” copies of no-carbon-required
inmate request slips and grievances, which the clerk’s office is
currently maintaining conventionally and has not scanned for
electronic filing.
Blackmer asserts that he did not retain a
copy of any of those exhibits, and that the exhibits “certainly”
would be “useful to be exploited in alternate approaches to this
or other courts.”
4
Blackmer’s present need for a free copy of the motion to
amend and the exhibits is not clear.
The court on this date has
granted Blackmer’s motion to amend (doc. no. 14); and that order
moots one predicate for Blackmer’s request.
The court further
notes that Blackmer had received notice before he filed those
documents that a copy charge would be assessed if he asked the
court for copies of his filings.
See Order (Oct. 17, 2012)
(waiving per-page copy charge on one-time basis).
If Blackmer
pays the filing fee in this case before December 19, 2012, as
directed, see Order (doc. no. 15), the complaint, including the
exhibits, will be ripe for screening, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
The facts documented in the exhibits do not show that
Blackmer is at “imminent danger of serious physical injury,” as
would be required for him to proceed in this case without paying
the full filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); that fact
calls into question Blackmer’s assertion that the documents are
certain to be useful for him in any other action in federal
court.
Accordingly, the court at this time denies Blackmer’s
motion (doc. no. 16), seeking a copy of his motion to amend and
the exhibits filed along with that motion.
Blackmer is free to
renew his request for a copy of those documents, if he pays the
5
copy charge, or shows good cause why the charge should be
waived.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Blackmer’s
motion to amend exhibits (doc. no. 3), and his motion to amend
the complaint (doc. no. 14).
extend time (doc. no. 11).
The court denies the motion to
The court denies the motion for
return of a copy of the motion to amend (doc. no. 16), without
prejudice to Blackmer renewing that request, if he pays the copy
charge, or shows good cause why that charge should be waived.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
December 14, 2012
cc:
Paul Blackmer, pro se
LBM:nmd
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?