Amatucci v. NH Supreme Court

Filing 6

/// ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint and 5 Amended Complaint as neither asserts viable causes of action. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(jab) Modified on 5/2/2014 to add ///: (jab).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 13-cv-502-SM
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 095

The New Hampshire Supreme Court,
Defendant
O R D E R
Josephine Amatucci is a very frequent filer in this
district.

As a result, she has been placed under some

restrictions.

Once again she seeks to file a complaint,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.

She originally filed

this civil action against the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Her

complaint was subject to preliminary screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and, upon such screening, the court
concluded that it failed to state any viable claims.
Nevertheless, the court afforded her 30 days within which to file
an amended complaint either seeking relief that the court is
empowered to grant, or naming defendants who may be required to
pay damages.

In response, Amatucci filed a “Motion to Amend” (document
no. 5), in which she seeks to advance claims against the public
defender who represented her in 2003, when she was arrested for

violating a restraining order.

But, those are the very same

claims she already tried (unsuccessfully) to litigate in a prior
case before this court.

See Amatucci v. Hamilton, 11-cv-512-SM.

Those claims were dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state
a viable cause of action.

Ms. Amatucci cannot relitigate them in

a new proceeding, as they are now barred.

Moreover, this court previously enjoined Amatucci from
filing any more complaints in which she raised claims related to
her arrest in 2003 (this is the seventh time she has tried to
litigate such claims).

See Amatucci v. Hamilton, 2013 WL 3897758

(D.N.H. July 29, 2013) (“Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby
dismissed with prejudice, and she is enjoined from commencing any
further actions in this court arising from her 2003 arrest
without prior approval from a judge of this court.”).

She did

not seek such prior approval before filing her amended complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, neither Amatucci’s original
complaint nor her amended complaint asserts viable causes of
action, and so are dismissed.

And, she would not be afforded

leave to file the amended complaint, in any event, because it
runs afoul of the restrictions previously imposed.
Court shall close the case.

2

The Clerk of

SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
May 2, 2014
cc:

Josephine Amatucci, pro se

3