Papineau v. NH State Prison, Warden et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard A. Papineau
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-40-SM
Warden, New Hampshire
State Prison, et al.
Report and Recommendation
Richard A. Papineau, who is an inmate at the Northern New
Hampshire Correctional Facility (“NCF”) and is proceeding pro
se, brought suit, alleging that the warden and employees at the
New Hampshire State Prison for Men (“NHSP”) failed to protect
him from staff and other inmates. Doc. no. 1. 	He then filed a
motion to amend his complaint to add defendants who are employed
at the NHSP Health Services Center.1 	Doc. no. 8. 	The complaint
and motion were referred for preliminary review pursuant to LR
4.3(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Based on preliminary review, the court concluded that
Papineau failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim but
gave him the opportunity to file an amended complaint. 	Doc. no.
13. 	The deadline for him to file an amended complaint was
August 4, 2022. 	Papineau did not file an amended complaint.
1 The motion is titled as a motion for an order to be
released from isolation, but it is construed as a motion to
amend because Papineau raises additional issues. 	Doc. no. 8.
Case 1:22-cv-00040-SM Document 16 Filed 08/15/22 Page 1 of 3

2
Since the order issued, Papineau sent two letters to the court,
which are addressed below.
Discussion
In his first letter (doc. no. 14), Papineau asked why his
complaint was referred to the magistrate judge for preliminary
review and expressed his view that the court was denying him
relief. 	As stated in the prior order and is stated above, the
complaint was referred pursuant to LR 4.3(d). 	Papineau’s
complaint and requests for relief were not denied. 	Instead, he
was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint to provide
factual allegations to support the relief he requested.
In his second letter (doc. no. 15), Papineau referred to
his first letter, described an incident at the prison, and
inquired about how his first letter had been made public. 	The
filings made in a case, including letters, are available to the
public on the docket unless they are sealed pursuant to LR
83.12. 	Therefore, both of Papineau’s letters are public.
Despite those communications with the court, Papineau did
not file an amended complaint or otherwise provide factual
allegations to support claims in this case. 	As a result, he has
not provided any basis to find cognizable claims in this case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court judge should
dismiss the complaint (doc. no. 1) and the motion (doc. no. 8)
Case 1:22-cv-00040-SM Document 16 Filed 08/15/22 Page 2 of 3

3
on preliminary review, without prejudice, as Papineau fails to
state a cognizable cause of action.
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). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file
any objections 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)
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 15, 2022
cc: Richard A. Papineau, pro se.
Case 1:22-cv-00040-SM Document 16 Filed 08/15/22 Page 3 of 3