Amatucci v. Chase et al
///ORDER approving with 2 exceptions 74 Report and Recommendation. Further, Mrs. Amatucci is directed to complete summonses for OBrien, Morgan, and Puffer, and return the completed summonses to the court within fourteen days of the date of this Order. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(cmp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Civil No. 17-cv-237-JL
Stuart Chase et al.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the objection (Doc. No. 83)
filed by plaintiff Josephine Amatucci, I herewith approve the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 74) (“R&R”) of Magistrate
Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated February 7, 2018, with the
following two exceptions:
Based on filings before the magistrate judge at the time
the R&R issued, it appeared that Mrs. Amatucci did not want this
action to proceed against former Wolfeboro Police Officer James
In her objection (Doc. No. 83) to the R&R, Mrs.
Amatucci asserts that she now wants O’Brien to remain as a
defendant in this case.
Accordingly, the court declines to
accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Mrs.
Amatucci’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 60) and dismiss O’Brien
from this case.
Mrs. Amatucci’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 60)
is denied, and O’Brien remains a defendant in this matter.
Retaliatory Lien Claim
In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommended that the court
deny Mrs. Amatucci’s request to add a claim to this action
asserting that, on December 13, 2017, Attorney Mark Puffer
placed a lien on Mrs. Amatucci’s property at the Carroll County
Registry of Deeds, in the amount of either $4,460.89 or
$4,500.89, to satisfy a judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs
entered against Mrs. Amatucci on August 12, 2015 in a state
court proceeding she had filed against Attorney Timothy Morgan,
Amatucci v. Morgan, No. 212-2015-CV-00052 (N.H. Super. Ct.,
Mrs. Amatucci seeks to amend her complaint to
assert a claim here that the lien was placed on her property in
retaliation for her exercise of her First Amendment right to
redress her grievances by filing this and other lawsuits, and
lodging misconduct complaints against officials of the Town of
Wolfeboro and the Wolfeboro Police Department.
The court finds that Mrs. Amatucci has asserted sufficient
facts to proceed on a retaliation claim against Attorney Morgan
and Attorney Puffer.
Accordingly, the court declines to accept
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Mrs. Amatucci’s
request to add that claim to this action, and that claim will be
allowed to proceed.
Service of O’Brien, Morgan, and Puffer
As stated above, the court now allows Mrs. Amatucci to
serve the above-referenced claims against James O’Brien,
Attorney Timothy Morgan, and Attorney Mark Puffer in this case.
Mrs. Amatuci has not provided this court with a summons form for
any of those defendants.
Accordingly, the clerk’s office is
directed to forward three blank summons forms to Mrs. Amatucci.
Mrs. Amatucci is directed to complete summonses for O’Brien,
Morgan, and Puffer, and return the completed summonses to the
court within fourteen days of the date of this Order.
Once the completed summonses are received from Mrs.
Amatucci, the clerk’s office is directed to issue the summonses
for defendants O’Brien, Morgan, and Puffer.
The clerk’s office
and United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire are
directed to effect service in the manner set forth in the
court’s November 17, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 26), except that the
documents to be served upon defendants pursuant to this Order
are: Document Nos. 1, 2, 5-8, 11-56, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66-80, 8285, 87, 89-92, and 94; and the endorsed orders issued on June 16
and December 14, 2017, January 4, 19, 22, and 25, 2018, and
February 2 and 6, 2018; this Order; and two other Orders issued
O’Brien, Morgan, and Puffer are instructed to answer or
otherwise plead within twenty-one days of service.
See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A).
For the foregoing reasons, the court now enters the
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 74) of
Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone, dated February 6, 2017, is
approved, except to the extent that it recommends that: 1) Mrs.
Amatucci’s motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 60) be
granted and James O’Brien be dismissed from this action; and 2)
Mrs. Amatucci’s request to add a First Amendment retaliatiory
lien claim against Attorney Timothy Morgan and Attorney Mark
Puffer be denied.
Mrs. Amatucci’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 60) is
denied, and James O’Brien remains as a defendant in this case.
Mrs. Amatucci’s request to assert a First Amendment
retaliatory lien claim against Attorneys Timothy Morgan and Mark
Puffer is granted.
The clerk’s office is directed to forward three blank
summons forms to Mrs. Amatucci, which Mrs. Amatucci is to return
to the clerk’s office, completed for defendants O’Brien, Morgan,
and Puffer, within fourteen days of the date of this Order.
Defendants O’Brien, Morgan, and Puffer are to be
served, and are to answer the complaint, as set forth in this
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
April 11, 2018
Josephine Amatucci, pro se
Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.
Mark H. Puffer, Esq.
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?