Amatucci v. Chase et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. 	Case No. 24-cv-154-SM-AJ
Stuart Chase, in his official
and individual capacities;
Wolfeboro Police Department;
Daniel Mullen; Ransmeier &
Spellman; and Joseph Laplante,
in his individual status
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Josephine Amatucci, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. no. 1/#9093, #90941)
alleging that the defendants have violated her federal
constitutional rights. 	The complaint is before the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2). 	Also before the Court for a
recommendation as to disposition is Mrs. Amatucci’s motion to
amend the complaint “with regards to the actual defendants in
this case” (Doc. No. 4/#9100).
1 As a courtesy to Mrs. Amatucci, the Court includes the
four-digit number she has given to her filings along with the
docket number the Court has assigned to her filings. 	She has
identified the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) as both #9093 and #9094.
Case 1:24-cv-00154-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 5

2
Preliminary Review Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed
by pro se litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). 	In considering whether a pro se
complaint states a claim, the court construes the pleading
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). 	The court then determines whether, stripped of legal
conclusions, and with all reasonable inferences construed in
plaintiff’s favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Claims may be dismissed, sua sponte, if the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2).
Discussion
The complaint in this matter arises out of the events
underlying two cases previously litigated in this Court, and the
litigation of those cases: Amatucci v. O’Brien, No. 15-cv-356-JL
(D.N.H.) (“Case 15-356”) and Amatucci v. O’Brien, No. 17-cv-237-
JL (D.N.H.) (“Case 17-237”). 	In Cases 15-356 and 17-237, Mrs.
Amatucci asserted claims against the Town of Wolfeboro (“Town”),
former Wolfeboro Police Department (“WPD”) Chief Stuart Chase,
and other defendants, alleging that they violated her rights by
Case 1:24-cv-00154-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 5

3
engaging in certain conduct relating to her arrest after a
traffic stop on May 7, 2014 and the criminal proceedings that
followed. 	Attorney Daniel Mullen of the law firm, Ransmeier &
Spellman PC (“Ransmeier”), appeared on behalf of the defendants
in both cases. 	United States District Judge Joseph Laplante
presided over both Cases 15-356 and 17-237.
In another case Mrs. Amatucci filed in this Court, Amatucci
v. Mullen, No. 21-cv-237-LM (D.N.H.) (“Case 21-237”), Mrs.
Amatucci asserted the same claims against Attorney Mullen, Judge
Laplante, and Ransmeier as she asserts here. 	The Court
dismissed Case 21-237 on the grounds of failure to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Attorney Mullen and Ransmeier,
and because the claims against Judge Laplante were barred by
absolute judicial immunity. 	See Case 21-237 (Aug. 18, 2022
Order (ECF No. 30) (approving July 1, 2022 R&R (ECF No. 25))).
On October 19, 2022, shortly after Case 21-237 was
dismissed, Mrs. Amatucci filed another lawsuit in this Court,
Amatucci v. Mullen, No. 22-cv-547-LM-AJ (D.N.H.) (“Case 22-
547”), naming the same defendants named here,2 and asserting the
2 The only difference in the defendants named in this case
and those named in Case 22-547 is that in this case she named
the WPD as a defendant, and in Case 22-547, she named the Town
as a defendant. 	With regard to claims asserted under § 1983, “a
municipal police department is not a separate legal entity
subject to suit,” as a “municipal police department lacks the
capacity to be sued” separately from the municipality.
Farrington v. Fairfield Police Dep’t, No. 1:23-cv-00362-LEW,
Case 1:24-cv-00154-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 5

4
same claims arising out of the same events as are asserted here,
including the litigation of Cases 15-356, 17-237, and 21-237.
On August 24, 2023, the District Judge dismissed Case 22-547 on
the basis that the claims therein were barred by res judicata.
See Case 22-547 (Aug. 24, 2023 Order (ECF No. 21) (approving
Aug. 8, 2023 R&R (ECF No. 16))). 	Mrs. Amatucci did not appeal
the dismissal of Case 22-547, and her seven post-judgment
filings (Doc. Nos. 23-27, 29, 30) seeking relief from the
dismissal of that case were denied. 	See id., Sept. 19, 2023
Order; Oct. 6, 2023 Order; Oct. 26, 2023 Order; Apr. 2, 2024
Order.
For the same reasons the Court dismissed Case 22-547, and
as fully explained in the August 8, 2022 Report and
Recommendation issued in that case, the claims asserted in this
action are barred by res judicata. 	Accordingly, the District
Judge should dismiss this case in its entirety.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should:
(1) dismiss this action in its entirety, with prejudice; and
(2) deny Mrs. Amatucci’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 4) as futile.
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89800, at *8 n.2, 2024 WL 2272266, at *3
n.2 (D. Me. May 20, 2024) (citing Dwan v. City of Boston, 329
F.3d 275, 278 n.1 (1st Cir. 2003)).
Case 1:24-cv-00154-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 06/11/24 Page 4 of 5

5
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 objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court.’” 	Id. 	Additionally, any issues “‘not preserved
by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” 	Id. (citations
omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 11, 2024
cc: Josephine Amatucci, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00154-SM-AJ Document 5 Filed 06/11/24 Page 5 of 5