Hart v. Goulette et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kenneth Hannibal Hart
v. 	Civil No. 16-cv-028-PB
Ryan Goulette et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) inmate Kenneth Hart has
filed a complaint (doc. no. 1) and three complaint addenda (doc.
1Defendants named in Hart’s pleadings (doc. nos. 1-3 and 9),
are New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Commissioner
William Wrenn, and current and former DOC employees and officers
Eric Barbaro, Paul Cascio, Dionne (whose first name is unknown
(“FNU”)), FNU Dube, Ryan Goulette, Becky Harding, Boe Hickman,
Christopher Kench, Page Kimbal, Nurse Diane (whose last name is
unknown), Brendan Luba, Robert Murray, Dr. Daniel Potenza,
Daniel Tanguay, Thomas Sheridan, Cpl. Roy Summers, four unnamed
New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) dentists, an unnamed NHSP
dental nurse, unnamed DOC employees, and John E. Perkins; an
unnamed Merrimack County Deputy Sheriff; New Hampshire Superior
Court Judge William Groff; Assistant Hillsborough County
Attorney Maureen F. O’Neil; Colleen F. Gould Kinney; Manchester
Police Department Detective John Morris; Hillsborough County
Department of Corrections officers Andre Pucci, Sgt. FNU
Cunningham, and FNU Schwartz; New Hampshire Public Defenders
Office Attorney Linda Slamon; the State of New Hampshire;
Attorney Timothy Arel; Paul Meurleman; the State of New York;
New York Division of Criminal Justice Services (“NYDCJS”) and
NYDCJS Commissioner Katherine N. Lapp; Bronx County; New York
County; the City of New York; Clerk of the New York Supreme
Court; an unnamed arresting officer in New York City; the New
York City Police Department, Precinct 44; an unnamed New York
Prosecutor; and Attorney Judy White.
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 18

2
nos. 2, 3, and 9). 	These pleadings are before the court for
preliminary review, pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A and 1915(e)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
For the purposes of this court’s preliminary review under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2), and LR 4.3(d), the court
construes pro se pleadings liberally in determining whether the
plaintiff has stated a claim. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). 	Disregarding legal conclusions, the court
considers whether the factual content in the pleading and
inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a
claim to relief. 	Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-
03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)).
Claims
Document Nos. 1-3 in this action were originally filed in a
prior lawsuit in this court, Hart v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No.
14-cv-421-LM. 	The court in that case directed the clerk’s
office to open this case, using those three documents as Hart’s
initial pleadings. 	This court now identifies all of the claims
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 18

3
Hart has asserted in Document Nos. 1-3 here, as follows:
1. 	An unnamed Merrimack County Sheriff’s Department
transport officer violated Hart’s right to access the
courts, by failing to transport Hart to a probate court
hearing and failing to tell that court why Hart did not
appear at the hearing on November 29, 2012.
2. 	NHSP Secure Psychiatric Unit (“SPU”) Corrections
Officers (“C.O.”) Ryan Goulette, Cpl. Page Kimbal, and Sgt.
Eric Barbaro violated Hart’s right to access the courts
in that, on November 29, 2012:
A. 	Goulette, Kimbal, and Barbaro seized and did not
return all of Hart’s legal research and a brief Hart
planned to file in the New Hampshire Supreme Court;
B. 	Goulette, Kimbal, and Barbaro seized Hart’s
stationery supplies and did not return those supplies;
C. 	The seizure of Hart’s legal work prevented Hart
from completing his pleadings in Hart v. U.S. Att’y
Gen’l, No. 12-cv-362-JL (D.N.H.); and
D. 	The seizure of Hart’s legal work prevented Hart
from filing a lawsuit regarding an April 2012 tasering
incident.
3. 	NHSP SPU Nurse Diane, whose last name is unknown
(“LNU”), violated Hart’s right to access the courts, by
threatening to put Hart in restraints.
4. 	SPU Capt. Paul Cascio and New Hampshire Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) Assistant Commissioner Christopher
Kench violated Hart’s right to access the courts, in that
they did not return Hart’s legal work to Hart that had been
seized on November 29, 2012.
5. 	Becky Harding and Capt. Paul Cascio violated Hart’s
right to access the courts in November/December 2012 by
refusing to give Hart sufficient stationery supplies, which
prevented Hart from filing documents in probate court after
November 29, 2012, and before December 5, 2012.
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 18

4
6. 	SPU C.O. Robert Murray and Capt. Cascio violated
Hart’s right to access the courts, in that they prevented
Hart from making copies of a document Hart had prepared for
filing in probate court before December 5, 2012.
7. 	C.O. Murray and Capt. Cascio violated Hart’s right to
privacy by reading the document Hart had prepared for
filing in probate court.
8. 	NHSP Librarian Becky Harding and others retaliated
against Hart for exercising his First Amendment right to
petition for redress of grievances, in that they refused to
give Hart sufficient stationery supplies before December 5,
2012.
9. 	SPU Capt. Cascio, C.O. Goulette, Cpl. Kimbal, and Sgt.
Barbaro seized and/or did not return Hart’s legal work on
November 29, 2012, to retaliate against Hart for exercising
his First Amendment rights: (A) in litigating a petition to
terminate a guardianship over his person, In re Hart, No.
317-2002-GI-00420 (N.H. Cir. Ct., 6th Cir., Probate Div.-
Concord); and (B) in preparing a lawsuit challenging the
April 2012 tasering incident.
10. 	In March 2014, NHSP law librarian Daniel Tanguay (A)
violated Hart’s right to access the courts, and (B)
retaliated against Hart for exercising his First Amendment
rights, by denying Hart access to six American Law Report
(“ALR”) articles in the possession of the state law
library, that Hart requested.
11. 	NHSP law librarian John Perkins has violated Hart’s
right to access the courts, in that: (A) Perkins has not
made books available to inmates that include all federal
statutes; and (B) Perkins has not provided inmates with
access to case reports from other states.
12. 	SPU C.O.s Barbaro and Dube, whose first name is
unknown (“FNU”), tasered Hart to force him to take
medication on April 15, 2012, after Hart had agreed to take
the medication, thereby subjecting Hart to the use of
excessive force in bad faith, in violation of Hart’s Eighth
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 18

5
Amendment rights.
13. 	DOC Hearing Officer Boe Hickman violated Hart’s right
to due process in the disciplinary hearing relating to the
April 2012 tasering incident.
14. 	Unnamed NHSP dentists and/or dental assistants
violated Hart’s Eighth Amendment rights in that:
A. 	“Dentist Jane Doe” ordered and undertook the
drilling and filling of a healthy tooth, intending to
cause Hart pain and injury, with deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to
Hart; and
B. 	Unnamed male dental providers drilled, filled, or
extracted Hart’s healthy teeth, and an unnamed female
dental provider refused to fix Hart’s partial dentures
unless Hart consented to having healthy teeth drilled,
and/or made improper, painful partial dentures for
Hart.
15. 	Defendant Wrenn is liable for violations of Hart’s
Eighth Amendment rights, for failing to hire competent NHSP
dental care providers, and for failing to supervise the
NHSP dental staff.
16. 	Capt. Cascio and Assistant DOC Commissioner Kench
violated Hart’s right to access the courts by taking away
Hart’s legal work, including parts of his criminal trial
records, from December 8, 2011, and then returning only
part of those records to him in disarray, on June 3, 2013.
17. 	NHSP Food Service Department Chef Brendan Luba, acting
alone or upon the orders of an unnamed “John/Jane Doe
Officer,” violated Hart’s rights under the First Amendment
by firing Hart from a kitchen job on April 20, 2015, in
retaliation for Hart’s filing of Hart v. U.S. Dep’t of
Treasury, No. 14-cv-421-LM (D.N.H.), grievances, and inmate
request slips.
18. 	Defendants have violated Hart’s Eighth Amendment
rights by creating stressful circumstances which have
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 18

6
caused Hart anguish and “mental paralysis.”
Hart seeks damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive
relief on those claims, asserted in Document Nos. 1-3.
In Document No. 9, Hart asserts additional claims for
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	This court identifies all of
the claims asserted in Document No. 9 as follows:
19. 	Hart’s conviction was obtained in violation of his
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a
fair trial, in connection with (former) Superior Court
Judge William Groff’s judicial acts in presiding over
Hart’s criminal case in 2000.
20. 	Deputy Hillsborough County Attorney Maureen O’Neil,
engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, in 2000, in violation
of Hart’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due
process and a fair trial, in that (a) Attorney O’Neil
knowingly allowed the victim to testify falsely in Hart’s
criminal case; (b) Attorney O’Neil lied when she stated in
Hart’s criminal case, in response to the court’s inquiry,
that the state could not identify or find any state
employee who witnessed Manchester Police Department (“MPD”)
Detective John Morris tamper with DNA samples; and (c)
Attorney O’Neil allowed a guilty verdict in Hart’s criminal
case to stand when Hart alleges that the prosecutor was
aware that the judge had dismissed the jurors and entered a
guilty verdict before the jury reached a unanimous verdict.
21. 	Hart’s conviction was obtained in violation of Hart’s
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, in that MPD
Detective John Morris, in 2000, (a) falsified evidence that
incriminated Hart; (b) tampered with DNA evidence; (c)
altered Hart’s transport arrangements while Hart was a
pretrial detainee; and (d) caused charges to be filed
against Hart knowing that the charges were based on false
allegations.
22. 	Attorney Linda Slamon of the New Hampshire Public
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 18

7
Defender’s Office, who was appointed to represent Hart in
his criminal case, provided ineffective assistance of
counsel in Hart’s criminal case, in violation of Hart’s
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
23. 	The victim in Hart’s criminal case, the police
investigator, court-appointed defense counsel, the
prosecutor, the presiding judge, Hillsborough County
Department of Corrections (“HCDC”) officers, Timothy Arel
(a “disbarred attorney”), DOC officers and employees, and
Paul Meuleman (a “Dollar Store” employee), conspired to
convict Hart wrongfully, and/or to ensure that Hart’s post-
conviction remedies would not be successful, in violation
of Hart’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, a
fair trial, and access to the courts.
24. 	HCDC C.O. Andre Pucci interfered with Hart’s access to
the courts in his criminal case in 2000, in violation of
Hart’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in that,
while Hart was representing himself in that criminal case
without a lawyer, Pucci seized Hart’s pretrial discovery
and scattered Hart’s legal papers in Hart’s HCDC cell every
night prior to Hart’s criminal trial.
25. 	HCDC C.O. FNU Schwartz violated Hart’s right to access
the courts by seizing Hart’s pens and pencils for three
months prior to the trial in Hart’s criminal case, which
interfered with Hart’s ability to contact stand-by counsel,
and prejudiced Hart’s ability to proceed without a lawyer
in that case in 2000.
26. 	HCDC Sgt. FNU Cunningham violated Hart’s right to
access the courts by seizing crime scene photos Hart
received through pretrial discovery, preventing Hart from
preparing a defense in his criminal trial in 2000 that the
photos had been fabricated.
27. 	The State of New York, the New York Division of
Criminal Justice Services (“NYDCJS”), NYDCJS Commissioner
Katherine Lapp, the Bronx and New York County, the City of
New York, New York prosecutors, New York court clerks and
judges, a New York Supreme Court, court-appointed defense
counsel in New York, and New York police investigators
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 18

8
published false and defamatory records of convictions and
arrests for Hart, rendering those New York defendants
liable to Hart for defamation.
Document Nos. 1-3 (Claims 1-18)
I. 	Access to the Courts (Claims 1-6, 10(a), 11, 16)
In Claims 1-6, 10(a), 11, and 16, Hart alleges that
defendants violated his right to access the courts. 	To state a
federal constitutional claim that prison officials violated an
inmate’s right of access to the courts, a plaintiff must show
that defendants have actually injured him, with respect to his
ability to pursue a nonfrivolous claim that he has a right to
litigate. 	See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-52 (1996). 	In
other words, the plaintiff must show “‘that an actionable claim
has been lost or rejected or that presentation of the claim is
currently being prevented’” due to defendants’ actions.
Guglielmo v. N.H. State Prison, 111 F.3d 122, 1997 U.S. App.
LEXIS 8616, at *2-*3 (1st Cir. 1997) (unpublished table
decision) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 356).
Hart alleges that defendants’ actions of denying him access
to his legal work and stationery supplies, copies, and
transportation to court caused him harm in a probate court
proceeding, an unspecified post-conviction proceeding in state
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 8 of 18

9
court, and/or in a civil action in this court. 	Hart further
asserts that these restrictions caused a delay in his ability to
file another civil rights lawsuit.
Hart has failed to allege facts that, if taken as true,
would demonstrate that he was actually injured with respect to
the assertion of a non-frivolous claim. 	To the extent Hart has
alleged that he suffered injury in any of those cases, his
assertions are purely conclusory. 	Accordingly, the district
judge should dismiss Hart’s access to the courts claims (Claims
1-6, 10(a), 11, and 16).
II. 	Privacy (Claim 7)
In Claim 7, Hart alleges that defendants C.O. Murray and
Capt. Cascio read the contents of a probate court filing that
Hart had prepared, and that their review of that document
violated his right to privacy. 	Without more, an officer’s
viewing of the contents of an inmate’s probate court filing does
not state a federal claim of a violation of the right to
privacy. 	Cf. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984)
(“prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy” in their
cell and personal effects). 	Accordingly, Claim 7 should be
dismissed.
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 9 of 18

10
III. Retaliation Claims (Claims 8-9, 10(b), and 17)
To state a claim for retaliation for the exercise of First
Amendment rights, an inmate must allege: (1) that the conduct
which led to the retaliation was protected by the First
Amendment; (2) that he suffered adverse action at the hands of
the prison officials; and (3) that there was a causal link
between the exercise of his First Amendment rights and the
adverse action taken. 	See Hannon v. Beard, 645 F.3d 45, 48 (1st
Cir. 2011). 	De minimis reactions to protected speech are not
actionable. 	See Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 685-86 (5th
Cir. 2006). 	An adverse act is not de minimis, however, if it
would deter an individual of ordinary firmness from exercising
his or her First Amendment rights. 	See id.; see also Starr v.
Dube, 334 F. App’x 341, 342-43 (1st Cir. 2009).
In Claim 9, Hart alleges that defendants Cascio, Goulette,
Kimbal, and Barbaro, on November 29, 2012, seized, and then did
not return Hart’s legal work for months, to retaliate against
Hart for litigating a petition to terminate a guardianship, and
to retaliate against Hart for preparing a lawsuit challenging an
alleged use of excessive force. 	In Claim 17, Hart alleges that
defendant Brendan Luba fired Hart from a kitchen job in April
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 10 of 18

11
2015, in retaliation for Hart’s filing of a lawsuit, grievances,
and inmate request slips, and/or that an unnamed NHSP officer
spoke with Luba on the phone and orchestrated Hart’s firing,
with the same retaliatory motive. 	The facts alleged as to
Claims 9 and 17 are sufficient to state First Amendment
retaliation claims. 	In an Order issued this date, the court has
directed service of those claims on the named defendants.
Claims 8 and 10(b) allege that defendants denied Hart
access to stationery supplies for a week before December 5,
2012, and barred Hart from obtaining free copies of six ALR
articles. 	An inmate of ordinary firmness would not forego
exercising his First Amendment rights, upon the threat that he
would be unable to obtain free copies of articles from the state
law library, or stationery supplies for a week or so.
Therefore, Hart has failed to state a claim regarding his lack
of access to ALR articles and stationery supplies. 	Accordingly,
the district judge should dismiss Claims 8 and 10(b).
IV. 	Due Process (Claim 13)
Hart alleges that DOC Hearings Officer Boe Hickman violated
his due process rights in a disciplinary proceeding. 	A prisoner
is entitled to due process protections only where he alleges
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 11 of 18

12
that he was deprived of a constitutionally protected interest in
life, liberty, or property. 	See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319, 332 (1976); González-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 880
n.13 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Protected liberty interests, for a
prisoner challenging the imposition of sanctions through
disciplinary proceedings, are “generally limited to freedom from
restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an
unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due
Process Clause of its own force nonetheless imposes atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life.” 	Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995) (citations omitted). 	In Claim 11, Hart alleges that, as
a result of a disciplinary hearing in which he was denied
certain due process protections, he was sanctioned with 30 days
loss of canteen, loss of condiments, loss of recreation time,
extra duty, and $27.00, the cost of a replacement Taser
cartridge. 	These deprivations are not atypical or significant,
and thus do not give rise to a due process claim upon which this
court may grant relief. 	See, e.g., id. at 484; Towle v.
Eldridge, No. 11-cv-293-SM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150862 at *6,
*9-*10, 2011 WL 6965471, at *2-*3 (D.N.H. Dec. 20, 2011), R&R
approved by No. 11-cv-293-SM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2611, 2012
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 12 of 18

13
WL 40458 (D.N.H. Jan. 6, 2012). 	Cf. Peterson v. Masse, No. 14-
cv-432-LM, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180351, at *7, 2015 WL 225446,
at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 18, 2014), R&R approved by No. 14-cv-432-LM,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5180, 2015 WL 225446, at *1 (D.N.H. Jan.
14, 2015). 	Furthermore, even if the Sandin standard were not
deemed applicable to the requirement that an inmate pay for a
Taser cartridge, the due process claim should be dismissed as
defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. 	Cf.
Peterson v. N.H. Dep’t of Corr., No. 14-cv-432-LM, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 139211, at *7, 2015 WL 5968897, at *3 (D.N.H. Sep.
16, 2015) (due process claim challenging administrative fee
assessed after guilty finding on prison drug charge was properly
dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity, as “‘there is no
clearly established right for the plaintiff to receive full
procedural due process protections before his prison account is
debited for a . . . fee’” for a drug test (citation omitted)),
R&R approved by No. 14-cv-432-LM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139218,
2015 WL 5968897, at *1 (D.N.H. Oct. 13, 2015). 	Accordingly, the
district judge should dismiss Claim 13.
V. 	Excessive Force Claim (Claim 12)
Hart’s allegations of an April 2012 incident of excessive
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 13 of 18

14
force, giving rise to the claim identified above as Claim 12,
states a claim upon which relief can be granted. 	Accordingly,
in the Order issued this date, the court has directed service of
Claim 12 upon defendants Barbaro and Dube.
VI. 	Eighth Amendment Claims (Claims 14(a)-(b), 15, and 18)
Hart asserts that his Eighth Amendment right not to be
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment was violated when
defendant dental care providers damaged his healthy teeth and
did not provide him with proper partial dentures, and when
defendants subjected him to stressful conditions, leading to his
“mental paralysis.” 	“[T]o prove an Eighth Amendment violation,
a prisoner must satisfy both of two prongs: (1) an objective
prong that requires proof of a serious medical need, and (2) a
subjective prong that mandates a showing of prison
administrators’ deliberate indifference to that need.” 	Kosilek
v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63, 82 (1st Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 2059 (2015).
Stripped of legal conclusions, Hart’s allegations
summarized in Claims 14(b) and 15, regarding damage to healthy
teeth, the preparation of partial dentures, and Wrenn’s failure
to supervise the dental staff at the NHSP or hire competent
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 14 of 18

15
dentists, all fail to state a claim of a violation of Hart’s
Eighth Amendment rights. 	As to Claim 14(a), asserting that
“Dentist Jane Doe” acted with a malicious motive in damaging
Hart’s healthy tooth, however, Hart has stated a claim that the
female dental provider’s conduct manifested deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Hart.
Accordingly, the court has directed service of Claim 14(a) in
the Order issued this date, and the district judge should
dismiss Claims 14(b), 15, and 18.
Document No. 9 (Claims 19-27)
In Document No. 9, Hart asserts claims relating to his New
Hampshire criminal trial in 2000, and to acts that occurred in
New York prior to that state prosecution.
I. 	New York Defendants (Claim 27)
Hart asserts claims against New York defendants for
defaming Hart, with respect to false statements in Hart’s
criminal history, generated by the State of New York. 	Hart
unsuccessfully sought leave to amend the complaint to add
essentially the same claims in Hart v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury,
No. 14-cv-421-LM (D.N.H.), ECF No. 39 (Motion to Amend). 	In
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 15 of 18

16
that case, the court denied Hart’s motion to amend the complaint
to add those claims on the basis that venue over those claims is
improper in this court. 	See id., ECF No. 43 & 47. 	Hart is
collaterally estopped from relitigating the same issues in this
case. 	Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss Claim 27
based on collateral estoppel, and because venue over his claims
against the New York defendants is not proper in this court.
II. 	Claims Barred by Heck v. Humphrey
Claims asserting violations of a criminal defendant’s
rights in his criminal prosecution must be dismissed if a
judgment on the claim would necessarily imply that the
underlying convictions or sentences are invalid, unless those
convictions and sentences were previously voided through
official action. 	See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994). 	In Document No. 9, Hart’s claims challenging alleged
violations of his rights in his criminal prosecution are barred
by the Heck doctrine, as those claims, if proven, would
necessarily imply that Hart’s 2000 state court conviction was
invalid. 	Because Hart’s conviction has not been voided through
any official action, the district judge should dismiss those
claims (Claims 19-22).
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 16 of 18

17
III. Time-Barred Claims
The district judge should dismiss all of Hart’s claims
arising from events occurring in 2000, as time-barred. 	Hart
asserts no facts suggesting any basis for this court to allow
Hart to litigate claims that, if not barred by Heck, accrued
more than a decade before Hart filed those claims in this court.
See Gorelik v. Costin, 605 F.3d 118, 121 (1st Cir. 2010)
(state’s generally applicable statute of limitations for tort
claims applies to § 1983 claims); see also N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 508:4, I (three year statute of limitations period).
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss Claims 23-26, for
failure to state a claim.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13, 14(b), 15-16, 18, and all of the
claims asserted in Document No. 9, with the proviso that Claim
27, as identified herein, should be dismissed without prejudice
to Hart’s ability to refile that claim in a court of proper
venue. 	The district judge should direct the clerk’s office to
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 17 of 18

18
drop all defendants named by Hart, except for those upon whom
the court directs service in an Order issued this date.
Defendants to be dropped, upon approval of this R&R, are all
defendants except for Ryan Goulette; Eric Barbaro; C.O. FNU
Dube, Paul Cascio; Page Kimbal; Brendan Luba; “Dentist Jane
Doe”; and the “John/Jane Doe Officer.”
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. 	See Garayalde-Rijos v. Mun. of Carolina, 747 F.3d 15,
21-22 (1st Cir. 2014).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 22, 2016
cc: 	Kenneth Hannibal Hart, pro se
Case 1:16-cv-00028-PB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 18 of 18