Pless et al v. Paciulli

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
KAYLA M. PLESS
JEREMIAH J. PLESS JR.
v. Civil No. 25-cv-00454-JL-TSM
EMMA PACIULLI
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiffs Kayla Pless and Jeremiah Pless Jr. filed a Complaint (Doc. No.
1) asserting that Emma Paciulli (who is identified in the Complaint both as a “U.S. Probation
Officer” and a probation officer with the New Hampshire Department of Corrections) violated
their rights under the United States Constitution. The Complaint is before the undersigned
magistrate judge for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), and LR
4.3(d).
JEREMIAH PLESS
On March 19, 2026, the court issued an Order (Doc. No. 4) taking preliminary review under
advisement and directing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, or a copy of the current
Complaint, signed by Mr. Pless, or by a lawyer appearing on one or both of their behalf, on or
before April 19, 2026, as only Mrs. Pless signed the Complaint. The Order further directed that
Mr. Pless file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by April 19, 2026 unless the filing fee
was paid by that date. The Plaintiffs failed to submit a Complaint signed by Mr. Pless or an
attorney, or an application for Mr. Pless to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly,
the district judge should dismiss the claims in this action, to the extent they are asserted on behalf
of Mr. Pless, and dismiss Mr. Pless from this action, without prejudice.
Case 1:25-cv-00454-JL-TSM Document 6 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
KAYLA PRESS
The Complaint, signed by Mrs. Pless, asserts that Officer Paciulli “engaged in repeated
misconduct” and “provided false statements” in Mr. Pless’s supervision record, and “made
inappropriate comments about [Mr. Pless’s] physical appearance” which “caused unnecessary
conflict” between the Plesses, and “created a hostile and retaliatory supervision environment” for
Mr. Pless. Doc. No. 1, at 3. All of these assertions allege violations of Mr. Pless’s rights.
To the extent Mrs. Pless seeks relief on her own behalf for the “unnecessary conflict”
between her and Mr. Pless, alleged to have resulted from Officer Paciulli’s comments to Mr. Pless
about his appearance, such allegations fail to demonstrate that Officer Paciulli violated her rights
under the United States Constitution or any other provision of law. Accordingly, Mrs. Pless failed
to state any claim upon which relief might be granted, and the district judge should dismiss Mrs.
Pless’s claims and deny Mrs. Pless’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) in
its entirety and deny Mrs. Pless’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). Upon the
district judge’s approval of this Report and Recommendation, the Clerk’s office should enter
judgment and close this case.
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 objection period may be extended upon
motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district
court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-00454-JL-TSM Document 6 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
___________________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
April 27, 2026
cc: Kayla Pless, pro se
Jeremiah Pless, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-00454-JL-TSM Document 6 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3