Allende v. NH Department of Corrections, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SHARIF ALLENDE
v. Civil No. 24-cv-208-JL-TSM
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff, Sharif Allende, who is a prisoner at the New Hampshire State
Prison for Men (“NHSP”), filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges
that the Warden subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Doc. No. 1. Allende then filed a series of amendments and supplements to the
complaint. Doc. Nos. 6, 9-13. He also moves for a preliminary injunction. Doc. No. 14. The
complaint and amendments were referred to the undersigned for preliminary review, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a) and LR 4.3(d)(1), and the motion for a preliminary injunction was referred for a report
and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons that follow, the court provides
an opportunity for Allende to file an amended complaint, as directed, failing which, the court
recommends that the district judge dismiss the case.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW STANDARD
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR 4.3(d)(1), “the
magistrate judge may recommend that the district judge dismiss one or more claims 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.” Barden v. Hillsborough Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., No. 23-
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 15

2
cv-452-JL-AJ, 2025 US. Dist. LEXIS 222578, at *1, 2025 WL 3164295, at *1 (D.N.H. Oct. 8,
2025), report and recommendation approved, No. 23-CV-452-JL-AJ, 2025 WL 3159423 (D.N.H.
Nov. 7, 2025). For purposes of deciding whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may
be granted, the court takes as true the facts alleged in the complaint, and inferences reasonably
drawn from those facts, strips away the legal conclusions, and considers whether the complaint
states a claim that is plausible on its face. See Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03
(1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). In determining whether a pro
se complaint states a claim, the court construes it liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (per curiam).
BACKGROUND
The Original Complaint
Allende alleges in his initial complaint that he was admitted to the NHSP on January 30,
2024. Doc. No. 1 at pg. 5. He alleges that the prison has a 5-day notice period during the admission
process when prisoners are notified that property cannot be taken into the prison and they are given
an opportunity to destroy, donate, or mail that property out of the prison. Id. at pg. 3. During the
admission process, prison staff took a black and white composition notebook and 30 stamped
envelopes from Allende, and he provided an address to mail his property out of the prison. Id.;
Doc. No. 1-1 at pgs. 1-6. When he inquired further about where his property was sent, the officer
on duty at that time and staff in the mailroom told him his property was sent to the address he
provided. Doc. No. 1-1 at pgs. 1-6. Although Allende suggests that his property was lost, the
inmate request slips, which he provided, explain that the property was mailed, under the 5-day
notice provision, to the address that he provided. Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 5-6; Doc. No. 1-1 at pgs. 1-7.
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 15

3
Dissatisfied with that response, Allende sent a request slip to the Warden. Doc. No. 1-1 at
pg. 7. Allende wrote that he was exhausting his “inhouse remedies.” Id. He stated that he had
“multiple sworn affidavits from people whom entered R/D at the same time and their property was
mishandled.” Id. He further wrote that he “really just want[ed] his property back” but he would
“bring up claims if not.” Id. Allende alleges that he did not receive a response from the Warden.
Doc. No. 1 at pg. 6.
Allende alleges that the conditions during the admission process are worse than in
segregation because prisoners are given only an hour and a half of recreation time per day.1 Id. at
pg. 3. He also alleges that the prison does not provide healthy breakfasts and serves breakfast too
early in the day and that the diet is resulting in the prison population being overweight. See id. at
pgs. 3-4 & 14; Doc. No. 1-1 at pg. 24.
On March 11, 2024, officers searched Allende’s cell and “trashed” it. Doc No. 1 at pg. 6.
As a result of the search, Allende received a disciplinary report for contraband that Allende
maintains he did not have in his possession. Id. Allende alleges that he was also disciplined for
having a “cash app” and that the prison did not inform prisoners that a “cash app” violated prison
regulation 45A. Id. at pgs. 6-7. During another cell search on April 5, 2024, officers found “pen
tubes” in Allende’s cell, which the officers identified as paraphernalia (apparently referring to drug
paraphernalia). Id. at pg.7. Allende alleges that he pled guilty to the charges because the hearing
officer told him that he would take the officers’ word for what happened. Id. Allende alleges that
1 Allende alleges that he was held in “receiving and diagnostics” during the admission process, but
it appears that the correct name is “Reception and Diagnostics,” which is abbreviated as “R&D.”
See Manual for the Guidance of Residents, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 2020
Edition, pg.2 (www.corrections.nh.gov); see also Maggi v. Grafton Cnty. Dep’t of Corrs., 762 F.
Supp. 3d 134, 139 (D.N.H. 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 15

4
his cell has been “trashed” on several occasions since then, which he alleges officers do to harass
inmates. Id. at pgs. 6-7, 9. In the initial complaint, Allende listed claims that the prison violated
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by trashing his cell and by not moving him out of H-
building and that the prison seized his property when he was admitted to the prison in violation of
his constitutional rights. Id. at pgs. 9-11. Allende asks that the court remove disciplinary report
number 24-03-2885 from his record, seeks money damages, and asks the court to order the prison
to change the breakfast schedule and menu. Id. at pgs. 12-15.
The October 2024 Amendment
In October 2024, Allende filed an amended complaint in which he challenges the Parole
Board’s decision not to grant him parole. Doc. No. 6. He alleges that the Parole Board’s
recommendations for him were that he “complete all extra duty hours prior to release,” which
Allende contends was a new requirement. Doc. No. 6 at pg. 2. He alleges that he completed the
extra duty hours before August 26, 2024. Id. For purposes of parole, Allende submitted a plan to
live at a sober living house in Manchester. Id. at pg. 3. He alleges that the Parole Board did not
accept his plan because he previously told prison staff, during admission, that he did not have a
problem with drug usage and had been sober, with respect to alcohol consumption, since December
2021 despite previously having a “problem with alcohol.” Id.
After Allende was denied parole, he alleges an officer told him that he would have another
assessment for parole eligibility because of a disciplinary ticket issued on June 14, 2024. Id. at pg.
4. Allende alleges, however, that at the time of his amendment, he received no notice of a new
assessment. Id. at pg. 5.
In his amended complaint, Allende also alleges an officer tampered with his mail, and that
certain prison officials submitted false reports that he was committing sexual violations in the
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 15

5
prison. Id. Allende alleges that these false accusations “could’ve gotten [him] killed” and
demonstrate the officials’ deliberate indifference to his and other inmate’s safety. Id.
The December 2024 Amendment
In December 2024, Allende again amended his complaint to add allegations about an
incident that occurred on October 25, 2024, involving an officer and another inmate. Doc. No. 10
at pg. 2. Allende alleges that he and other inmates witnessed an officer use excessive force on
another inmate, in an area where there are no cameras. When he reported the incident to the
Warden, Allende alleges that he and others received disciplinary tickets for watching the
altercation, based on the rule against being out of place. Doc. No. 10 at pgs. 2-3 & 5. He alleges
that the investigating officer lacked probable cause to charge him with the infraction of being out
of place, and instead the disciplinary ticket was issued in retaliation against him for reporting the
October 25 incident. Id.
Allende alleges that he experienced other retaliatory conduct because he reported to the
Warden. Soon after his report to the Warden, officers conducted a random search in Allende’s
cell. Id. at pg. 4. Thereafter, Allende alleges that his cell was “trashed numerous times,” and that
such conduct constitutes harassment. Id. Allende alleges that the officers’ actions following his
report to the Warden violated the Eighth Amendment. Id. at pg. 5.
In his December amendment, Allende also alleges that he was denied equal protection in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when he was wrongfully denied parole. Id. at pgs. 6-8.
The February 2025 Amendment
In February 2025, Allende filed another amended complaint to address subsequent events.
Doc. Nos. 11 and 12. He alleges that he and other prisoners planned to file a class action based on
the October 25 incident and other incidents when they believed officers used excessive force. Doc.
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 5 of 15

6
No. 11 at pg. 1. He alleges that on January 15, 2025, he and the officer doing the evening count
got into a dispute and, as a result, officers searched his cell. Id. They found and took Allende’s
“phonebook,” which he alleges contained legal work pertaining to the class action. Id. The officer
looked through the book and concluded that it contained “cash apps.” Id. When Allende asked
another officer about the phonebook, the officer said he had a disciplinary ticket because of the
cash app in the book. Id. at pg. 2. Allende alleges that the officers imposed the disciplinary report
to prevent him from getting evidence about an officer’s use of excessive force, that is, Allende’s
efforts “to prove he is a terrorist in government garb.” Id. at 3. Allende further alleges that he got
disciplinary reports for being out of place, after he filed grievances. Id. Allende alleges that he had
a disciplinary hearing on February 2, 2025, on the report based on the content of his phonebook,
and that he pled guilty. Id. at pg. 5.
Allende alleges that the prison violated his right to due process by not allowing him to call
witnesses and present evidence during the disciplinary proceedings against him and by not having
footage from body worn cameras during the incidents. Id. at 5-6. He asks that the court remove
disciplinary reports 25-01-0225 and 25-01-0366 from his disciplinary history. Id. at pg. 7. He also
asks the court to order the prison to return his phonebook to him. Id.
DISCUSSION
Allende brings claims under § 1983. The court addresses issues with the parties named and
the claims alleged as follows.
I. Parties
In his initial complaint and the subsequent amendments, Allende names only Warden
Michelle Edmark and the New Hampshire Department of Corrections as defendants. His
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 6 of 15

7
allegations, however, suggest that he may have intended to bring claims against various prison
officers and staff, but he does not name any of them as defendants.
A. Defendants
Under § 1983 any person acting under state law, known as a state actor, may be liable to a
party injured by “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Allende cannot bring § 1983 claims against the New Hampshire
Department of Corrections because the State of New Hampshire and its agencies, such as the
Department of Corrections, are not state actors for purposes of § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989); Nieves–Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 124 (1st Cir. 2003)
(“No cause of action for damages is stated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state, its agency, or
its officials acting in an official capacity.”); see also Snowman v. Maine Dep’t of Corr., No. 25-
cv-00276-SDN, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149934, at *4, 2025 WL 2212098, at *2 (D. Me. Aug. 5,
2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:25-CV-00276-SDN, 2025 WL 3034923 (D. Me.
Oct. 30, 2025). Therefore, the New Hampshire Department of Corrections is not a proper party in
this § 1983 action, and the district judge should dismiss all claims against it.
In addition, “a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior
theory.” Wadsworth v. Nguyen, 129 F.4th 38, 62 (1st Cir. 2025). Instead, “a supervisor’s liability
must be premised on their own acts or omissions,” such as “where (1) the behavior of the
subordinates results in a constitutional violation, and (2) the supervisor’s action or inaction was
affirmatively linked to that behavior in the sense that it could be characterized as supervisory
encouragement, condonation or acquiescence, or gross negligence amounting to deliberate
indifference.” Id. at 62-63 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 7 of 15

8
Allende includes no allegations about the Warden’s actions or inaction that were linked to
constitutional violations. Although he alleges that he sent the Warden a grievance about his
missing notebook and envelopes and that she did not respond, the grievances he filed with his
complaint demonstrate that officers and staff explained to Allende that his property was sent to the
address he provided.2 Allende does not allege facts that show either a constitutional violation or
that the Warden’s own acts or omissions caused a constitutional violation. For that reason, Allende
does not state a cognizable claim against the Warden, and the district judge should dismiss all
claims against her. Because Allende may have intended to name NHSP officers as defendants,
however, the court will give him an opportunity to file an amended complaint, as provided below,
to properly name defendants and to state claims with specificity about what each defendant did
what, why those actions were taken, and what harm he experienced as a result.
B. Plaintiff
Allende represents himself, meaning that he is proceeding pro se. He is the only plaintiff
in this case. In his pleadings, however, Allende refers to a class action and alleges incidents that
involve other prisoners, appearing to assert claims on their behalf. See Doc. No. 11. To clarify,
Allende can only represent himself and cannot represent other prisoners or bring claims on their
behalf. LR 83.6 (“A pro se party may not authorize another person who is not a member of the bar
of this court to appear on his or her behalf”); see Beres v. RELX, Inc., No. 25-CV-79-SM-AJ,
2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61805, at *2, n.2, 2025 WL 972864, at *1, n.2 (D.N.H. Apr. 1, 2025). For
2 For that reason, the Warden’s alleged failure to answer Allende’s grievance cannot be deemed to
support a claim against the Warden in her supervisory capacity in this case. See also El v.
Hazlewood, No. 19-cv-647-JL, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103435, at *16-*17, 2020 WL 3086289, at
*7 (D.N.H. May 7, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Re El v. FCI Berlin,
Warden, No. 19-CV-647-JL, 2020 WL 3086273 (D.N.H. June 9, 2020)
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 8 of 15

9
that reason, if Allende chooses to file an amended complaint, he may only bring his own claims
and cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.
II. Claims
Allende’s claims fall into categories of missing property, conditions of confinement related
to breakfast menus and access to recreation, retaliation, denial of parole, and disciplinary decisions.
In addition to not naming a defendant against whom relief may be granted, Allende’s allegations
either do not state cognizable causes of action, lack sufficient specificity to state an actionable
claim, or both. For these reasons, the court grants Allende an opportunity to file an amended
complaint that states actionable claims against appropriate defendants.
A. Missing Property
As is discussed briefly above, Allende alleges that when he was admitted to NHSP, staff
took his notebook and stamped envelopes and did not return them. Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 3-5. The
inmate request slips that Allende submitted with his complaint, however, show that prison staff
sent his property to the address that Allende provided for that purpose. Doc. No. 1-1 at pgs. 1-7.
Even if Allende’s property were taken and lost, however, those allegations would not state an
actionable claim.
“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not
constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful
post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).
The State of New Hampshire, through its Board of Claims, provides a post-deprivation remedy
which is adequate to redress Allende’s loss of property, if that occurred. See RSA 541–B:9 and
541–B:14; see also Beers v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, No. 20-cv-968, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
252468 at *21, 2021 WL 6775418, at *7 (D.N.H. May 20, 2021). Accordingly, Allende does not
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 9 of 15

10
state a § 1983 claim for violation of his due process rights based on his allegedly missing property,
and the district judge should dismiss any claim arising from allegations that his property was lost
or improperly taken from him.
B. Recreation and Breakfast
Allende alleges that prisoners are not given enough recreation time while they are in
receiving and diagnostics before moving to the general population. He also alleges that the
breakfast menu for all prisoners is too high in carbohydrates and is served too early. Doc. No. 1-1
at pg. 24. He contends that these conditions constitute violations of the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.3
“The Eighth Amendment prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’” Abernathy v.
Anderson, 984 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VIII). As such, the Eighth
Amendment prohibits inhumane conditions in prisons but “does not mandate comfortable prisons.”
Id. (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
349 (1981)). An Eighth Amendment violation occurs when two conditions are met. Cintron v.
Bibeault, 148 F.4th 37, 47 (1st Cir. 2025)(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). The first requires that
the deprivation is sufficiently serious, meaning that “a prison official’s act or omission must result
in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities such that the plaintiff is
incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). And, the second requirement is that “a prison official must have a sufficiently
culpable state of mind.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 To the extent Allende may have intended to allege that the law library and the prison yard were
closed due to staff shortages, he does not allege facts to show those restrictions affected him.
Allende alleges that in October 2024 he told the corrections officer who notified him that he missed
a meeting that he “attends law library every Tuesday,” which is evidence that the law library was
open and that he had access to it. Doc. No. 6 at pg. 4.
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 10 of 15

11
Allende’s allegations that he was limited to an hour and a half of recreation time per day
for the short time during the admission process before he was released to general population do
not state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 485-86 (1995); see
also, e.g., Norbert v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 10 F.4th 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2021); Godfrey v.
Little, No. 22-cv-892; 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192386, at *27-*28, 2025 WL 2792250, at *18
(M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2025) (holding that daily recreation time of fifteen to forty-five minutes where
the prisoner had to choose between showering and making a phone call was insufficient alone or
in conjunction with other conditions to establish a triable Eighth Amendment claim); Hinote v.
Jordan, No. 19-cv-204, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137925, at *9, 2019 WL 3845377, at *4 (D. Me.
Aug. 15, 2019) (noting that “[c]onditions that might be deemed cruel and unusual if they were
permanent features of a prisoner’s life, may not offend the Constitution if they are imposed only
temporarily”).
Allende’s allegations that the breakfast menu, which includes milk, bananas, scrambled
eggs, pancakes, cereal, and toast, is unhealthy because of carbohydrates in the menu and that
breakfast is served too early in the day, at 5:00 a.m., do not state an Eighth Amendment claim. See
Hinote, 2019 WL 3845377, at *4 (“The Eighth Amendment requires that prisoners be served
nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served under conditions which do not present an
immediate danger to the health and wellbeing of the inmates who consume it.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also Alfred v. Bryant, 378 F. App’x 977, 980 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Inmates
cannot expect the amenities, conveniences and services of a good hotel.”).
For these reasons, the district judge should dismiss Allende’s claim or claims arising from
alleged restrictions on his recreation time and breakfast in the prison.
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 11 of 15

12
C. Retaliation
Allende alleges repeatedly that certain officers searched and trashed his cell to harass him.
See e.g. Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 6-8; Doc. No. 10 at pg. 4; Doc. No. 12 at pg. 1. He also alleges that
officers tried to deter him from getting affidavits to prove that certain officers were a “security
risk” and that “retaliations normally take place after I write grievances.” Doc. No. 11 at pgs. 1-3.
To state a claim of First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must allege facts that show:
“(1) he engaged in an activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) [defendants] took an adverse
action against him; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse
action.” Staples v. Gerry, 923 F.3d 7, 15 (1st Cir. 2019). Activities protected by the First
Amendment include filing lawsuits and filing prison grievances. See id.; Hannon v. Beard, 645
F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2011). “Because prisoner retaliation claims are easily fabricated and . . . pose
a substantial risk of unwarranted judicial intrusion into matters of general prison administration,
courts must insist that such claims are bound up in facts, not in the gossamer strands of speculation
and surmise.” Hannon, 645 F.3d at 48 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Allende’s allegations do not provide sufficient factual information about who searched his
cell, when the search happened, and what protected conduct of his caused retaliation. Although he
alleges generally that retaliation occurred after he filed grievances, he does not provide sufficient
factual information about the grievances, what retaliation occurred, when, and by whom to assess
a retaliation claim. Allende is given an opportunity to file an amended complaint that remedies
those deficiencies in his existing pleadings.
D. Parole
Allende disputes decisions made by prison staff or the Parole Board, or both, about his
parole plan and his eligibility for parole. Doc. No 6 at pgs. 2-6; Doc. No. 10 at pgs. 3, 6-8. He
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 12 of 15

13
alleges that the parole decisions violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Doc. No. 10 at pg. 6.
“Under the Equal Protection Clause, persons similarly situated must be accorded similar
governmental treatment.” Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2007). In the
context of an equal protection claim challenging parole, because inmates have no right to parole,
“an inmate must demonstrate that the differential treatment he received in being denied parole
lacked any rational relationship to a valid penological objective.” Dupont v. N.H. Adult Parole
Bd., No. 11-cv-156-SM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150902, at *12, 2011 WL 6934778, at *4 (D.N.H.
Dec. 19, 2011), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Dupont v. NH State Adult Parole
Bd., No. 11-cv-156-SM, 2012 WL 405505 (D.N.H. Feb. 8, 2012).
Allende does not allege facts that show that he was treated any differently than any other
inmate seeking parole and instead his allegations indicate that the Parole Board denied parole for
a valid reason, because his plan did not identify an appropriate living arrangement. Doc. No. 6 at
pgs. 4-6. Although Allende disagrees with that decision, he has not alleged any facts to show that
the decision violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. For that
reason, the district judge should deny Allende’s claim that he was denied parole in violation of the
equal protection clause.
To the extent Allende intended to challenge the parole decision as a violation of his due
process right under the Fourteenth Amendment, that claim also fails. “The right to procedural due
process guarantees that, before a significant deprivation of liberty or property takes place at the
state’s hands, the affected individual must be forewarned and afforded an opportunity to be heard
at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Maldonado-Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct
& Sewer Auth., 158 F.4th 27, 34 (1st Cir. 2025). For that reason, a plaintiff raising a due process
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 13 of 15

14
claim must allege facts that show he was deprived of “a constitutionally protected interest in life,
liberty, or property.” Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1, 8 (1st
Cir. 2005).
As noted above, “[t]here is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally
released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole
to their prisoners.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). New Hampshire law provides
no right to parole. Ainsworth v. Stanley, 317 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2002). Therefore, if Allende
intended to claim that his parole was denied in violation of due process, the district judge should
dismiss the claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss all claims against the only
named defendants Warden Michelle Edmark and the New Hampshire Department of Corrections.
Plaintiff is given an opportunity to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this
order in which he identifies specific individual defendants and alleges facts to support his
retaliation claim, see Part C above in this report and recommendation, that officers retaliated
against him because he filed grievances or because he filed or planned to file a case in state or
federal court. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the district
court should enter judgment and close the case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. The objection 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
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 14 of 15

15
objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: December 11, 2025
cc: Sharif Allende, pro se.
Case 1:24-cv-00208-JL-TSM Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 15 of 15