Waite v. Hoyt et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard A. Waite
v. Civil No. 22-cv-071-SE-AJ
Chaplain D. Hoyt et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
N.H. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) prisoner Richard A.
Waite filed this action, asserting federal civil rights claims
against the Northern N.H. Correctional Facility (“NCF”) Warden,
the DOC Commissioner, the NCF Chaplain, and other members of the
DOC Religious Review Committee. Before the court is Waite’s
motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 10) seeking to add new
claims and to join new defendants.
Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of
service of a responsive pleading or motion, and at other times,
with leave of the court, “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). As a general rule, a motion for leave to
amend a complaint should be granted unless there is “an adequate
reason” to deny the motion, “such as undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or futility of the
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 11

2
amendment.” Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124, 136 (1st Cir.
2000). Where a proposed amendment also seeks to join a party,
that request is “‘governed by Rule 21, which provides that the
court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party.’” Gigunda Grp., Inc. v. Creative Collective Grp., No.
15-cv-104-LM, 2015 WL 6872281, at *1, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
151771, at *4 (D.N.H. Nov. 9, 2015) (citation omitted). “‘[T]he
same standard of liberality applies’” under both Rule 15(a) and
Rule 21. Id. (citation omitted).
Waite filed his motion to amend the complaint and to join
new defendants (Doc. No. 10) after this court had identified the
claims in the original complaint that could proceed, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, but before any defendant had appeared or
filed a response. This court need not decide whether the
proposed new claims against new defendants could be added
through an amendment to the complaint filed as of right,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), as this court is
authorized to conduct a preliminary review of each of the
plaintiff’s initial pleadings in this case, including Document
No. 10, pursuant to LR 4.3(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The standard applied in that preliminary review,
see Jan. 5, 2024 R&R (Doc. No. 8), at 1-2, includes an inquiry
into whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 11

3
be granted against any defendant who is not immune from the
relief sought. That standard is also applied when a court
determines whether to deny a motion to amend on the basis of
futility. A “futile” amendment is one that “would fail to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Glassman v.
Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996).
Background
The new claims Waite proposes to add to this case through
Document No. 10, grouped generally by subject matter, and the
new defendants he appears to seek to join, are the following:
• two separate Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claims -- one
asserted against both the NCF Warden and the DOC
Commissioner, relating to an electronic device (a tablet)
Waite owned but then had to give up; and the other,
asserted against new defendants (the Acting NCF Warden
Major Newton, the Acting DOC Commissioner, and a DOC
Property employee, Mrs. Poulin), for cough drops and
cough syrup Waite purchased by mail but was not allowed
to receive; and
• Eighth Amendment dental care claims, which he appears to
intend to assert against the NCF Warden, the DOC
Commissioner, the DOC Director of Medical Services,
and/or other defendants named in Document No. 10;
• Eighth Amendment sleep disruption claims, asserted
against the NCF Warden and DOC Commissioner, as well as
five new defendants (who appear to be Lt. Sweat, Cpl. St.
Cyr, CO St. Cyr, CO Rex, and CO Cyr, all of whom are
alleged to be NCF third-shift corrections officers in NCF
housing unit) for their acts and omissions relating to
the slamming of doors every thirty minutes at night
during the third shift, since approximately June 2023,
depriving the plaintiff of sleep;
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 11

4
• Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment legal mail interference
claims which he appears to intend to assert against the
NCF Warden, the DOC Commissioner, and new defendant Chief
Hammer, relating to the use of a photocopier, with
digital image storage capacity, to copy and retain images
of incoming privileged legal mail at NCF, alleging
violations of the “Laaman Consent Decree” and federal
law.
Discussion
I. Takings Clause Claims
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that
“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without
just compensation.” Waite has alleged that he bought a tablet
for personal use from the prison canteen. Then, he alleges, he
was forced to give up that tablet and to rent a new tablet
provided by a new vendor. He has further alleged that he bought
cough syrup and cough drops for delivery by mail, which prison
officials did not allow him to receive.
Waite has alleged that the tablet, cough drops, and cough
syrup were his personal property which prison officials forced
him to give up. He has not alleged, however, that any of those
items were taken for “public use” by any DOC employee or other
state official. Absent that allegation, Waite has failed to
state any claim upon which relief can be granted under the
Takings Clause. See Moretto v. Securus Techs., No. 2:23-CV-881-
SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 167259, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2024) (prison
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 4 of 11

5
officials who issued plaintiff “a defective tablet device”
failed to state Takings Clause claim); Peterka v. Dixon, No.
4:23CV55-MW-MAF, 2023 WL 7272116, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 10,
2023) (prisoner who alleged that his “private property was
required to be surrendered because of a DOC rule,” failed to
state Takings Clause claim), R&R adopted, No. 2023 WL 7182114
(N.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2023); Williams v. Payne, No. 4:22-CV-797-JM-
JTR, 2023 WL 3486019, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 26, 2023) (prison
officials who confiscated incoming Amazon package were not
liable for Takings Clause claim), R&R adopted, 2023 WL 3481140
(E.D. Ark. May 16, 2023). Accordingly, the district judge
should deny the motion to amend (Doc. No. 10), to the extent
that Waite seeks to add Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claims to
this case against any defendants, as his allegations, concerning
his loss of access to his electronic tablet and the failure to
deliver his cough syrup and cough drops, fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause.
II. Laaman Claims
Waite claims that the photocopying of incoming legal mail
violates the “Laaman Consent Decree.” His citation refers to
Laaman v. Helgemoe, No. 75-cv-258 (D.N.H.), a class action
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 5 of 11

6
lawsuit filed in federal court in 1975, challenging conditions
of confinement at the New Hampshire State Prison. The court no
longer retains jurisdiction over that case, as the case was
settled, and the order terminating federal jurisdiction in 2001
provided that the settlement agreement between the parties in
that case would be enforceable in the state courts. See
Polansky v. N.H. Dep’t of Corr., No. 16-cv-256-LM, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 181052, at *15 (D.N.H. Nov. 28, 2016), R&R approved,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181055 (D.N.H. Dec. 29, 2016).
None of the defendants here is a signatory to that
settlement agreement in an individual capacity. Therefore, none
of them can be held liable in an individual capacity with
respect to any claims of a violation of that settlement
agreement.
Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment precludes any official
capacity claims the plaintiff could assert in this case based on
the Laaman settlement agreement. See Polansky, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 181052, at *15. Accordingly, the district judge should
deny the motion to amend (Doc. No. 10), in part, to the extent
that Waite seeks to add any claims arising out of the Laaman
Consent Decree or settlement agreement.
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 6 of 11

7
III. Remaining Claims
“[I]t is well-settled that parties are misjoined when the
preconditions for permissive joinder in Rule 20(a) are not met.”
Beaulieu v. Concord Group Ins. Co., 208 F.R.D. 478, 479 (D.N.H.
2002). Under Rule 20(a), a plaintiff may join multiple
defendants in a single action if the plaintiff asserts against
each of them at least one claim to relief that arises out of the
same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences, and if there are questions of law or fact common to
all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A), (B); Rice v. Spencer, No.
CIV.A. 2013-12046-RBC, 2014 WL 2453104, at *3, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 74359, at *8 (D. Mass. May 29, 2014); 7 Charles Alan
Wright et al., Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 1655 (4th ed. 2019). If
the standard for permissive joinder of defendants is met, then a
party may join as many claims as it has against one or more of
those parties, even if the additional claims do not arise from
the same set of transactions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Where
claims that should be litigated separately against different
defendants have been misjoined, this court may sever
them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the
court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The
court may also sever any claim against a party.”).
To meet the first prong of Rule 20(a)(2) test for
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 7 of 11

8
permissive joinder of parties, “the claims must be ‘logically
related’ to each other, although “[a]bsolute identity of all
events is unnecessary.’” Martinez v. Dep’t of Just., 324 F.R.D.
33, 36 (D.D.C. 2018) (citations omitted), appeal filed, No. 23-
5270 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 27, 2023). The religious exercise and diet
claims in the original complaint that survived this court’s
preliminary review in this case relate to Waite’s religious
practices and his nutritional needs. Specifically, the court
required multiple defendants including the DOC Commissioner, the
NCF Warden, the DOC chaplains, and other prison officials who
are or have been members of the DOC Religious Review Committee
to respond to Waite’s RLUIPA and Free Exercise Clause claims
concerning his diet and his alleged unmet need for a particular
type of oil to proceed against. In addition, this court
required the NCF Warden and the DOC Commissioner to respond to
Waite’s Eighth Amendment claim asserting an unmet serious
nutritional need relating to his diet.
The new claims in Document No. 10 concern Waite’s alleged
unmet dental care needs, the effect of door slamming at night in
his unit on his sleep since June 2023, and the copying of his
incoming legal mail which he has alleged has affected his
privileged communications in violation of the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Waite appears to intend to join new
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 8 of 11

9
defendants to this lawsuit with respect to each of those new
claims. In particular, the following new defendants appear in
the narrative of his claims in Document No. 10: five corrections
officers who slam doors at night, the DOC Director of Medical
Services who is alleged to have failed to address his grievances
regarding his dental care claims, and Chief Hammer who is
alleged to have failed to address his grievances regarding the
NCF photocopier. None of those new defendants is a party to any
other claim presently in this case, and none of them is a co-
defendant to the other proposed new claims in Document No. 10.
The three types of claims Waite proposes to add to this
case involving those new defendants arise out of transactions,
occurrences, or a series of transactions and occurrences that
are not logically related to one another, and which are not
related to any of the matters forming the bases of the religious
rights claims and the Eighth Amendment diet claim that this
court has allowed to proceed in this action. Such unrelated
prisoner civil rights claims against those new defendants belong
in different suits, to prevent the case from becoming a case
management “morass,” and to help ensure the efficacy of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision.
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, the new defendants and the claims against them are
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 9 of 11

10
not properly joined together in this prisoner civil rights
action under Rule 20(a)(2).
Applying the pertinent rules in a manner that avoids
unnecessarily complicating this case, the undersigned magistrate
judge recommends that the district judge deny the motion to
amend (Doc. No. 10). In doing so, the court preserves Waite’s
ability to file up to three new complaints, initiating new
cases, in which he may litigate: (1) his Eighth Amendment dental
care claims, (2) his Eighth Amendment sleep deprivation claims,
and (3) his Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment legal mail
claims.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends
as follows:
1. The district judge should deny plaintiff’s motion to
amend (Doc. No. 10), to the extent he seeks to add any
Laaman Consent Decree or Laaman settlement agreement claims
to this case, and to the extent he seeks to add any Fifth
Amendment Takings Clause claims, arising from the facts
alleged in Document No. 10, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted; and
2. The district judge should otherwise deny plaintiff’s
motion to amend (Doc. No. 10), without prejudice to Waite’s
ability to file up to three new complaints, initiating new
cases, in which he may litigate his Eighth Amendment dental
care claims, his Eighth Amendment sleep deprivation claims,
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 10 of 11

11
and his Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment legal mail
claims.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016). Only those issues raised in the written objections to
this Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 18, 2024
cc: Richard A. Waite, pro se
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
Case 1:22-cv-00071-SE-AJ Document 25 Filed 04/18/24 Page 11 of 11