Amatucci v. Wolfeboro, NH, Town of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-716-JD
Town of Wolfeboro
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court for preliminary review is plaintiff
Josephine Amatucci’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this matter,
brought against the Town of Wolfeboro (“Town”). 	Also before the
court is plaintiff’s “Supplement Evidence of Fraud” (Doc. No.
4). 	The complaint and complaint supplement are before the court
for preliminary review. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
In determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim,
the court construes the pleading liberally. 	See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 	Disregarding any legal
conclusions, the court considers whether the factual content in
the pleading and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as
true, state a claim to relief. 	Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723
F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
Case 1:17-cv-00716-JD Document 8 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 4

U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Discussion
I. 	Complaint (Doc. No. 1)
In her initial complaint plaintiff asserts that her rights
under state and federal law were violated by the Town when it
filed a petition in the Superior Court seeking to have Mrs.
Amatucci declared to be a vexatious litigant, pursuant to N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § (“RSA”) 507:15-a. 	See Town of Wolfeboro v.
Amatucci, No. 212-2015-CV-0090 (N.H. Super. Ct., Carroll Cty.).
The complaint in this case is identical to the complaint Mrs.
Amatucci filed in another action in this court, Amatucci v. Town
of Wolfeboro, No. 17-cv-581-LM (D.N.H.) (“Case 17-581”).1
In Case 17-581, the court dismissed the action in its
entirety, finding that this court lacked jurisdiction over some
of the claims asserted in that matter under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, and that Mrs. Amatucci had failed to state a federal
claim for relief. 	Further, the court in Case 17-581 declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mrs. Amatucci’s state
law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice to Mrs.
1The duplication of action may have been the result of
confusion as to the meaning of orders issued in Amatucci v.
O’Brien, No. 15-cv-356-JL (D.N.H.), and Amatucci v. Chase, No.
17-cv-237-JL (D.N.H.), in which Amatucci was denied relief
concerning issues similar to the issues addressed in this case
and in Case 17-581.
2
Case 1:17-cv-00716-JD Document 8 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 4

Amatucci’s ability to litigate them in state court. 	See Case
17-581, Jan. 5, 2018 Order (ECF No. 6) (approving Dec. 18, 2017
R&R (ECF No. 3)); Jan. 10, 2018 Judgment (ECF No. 7). 	As the
complaint in this case is identical to that filed in Case 17-
581, the district judge should dismiss the claims asserted in
the complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this case, for the same reasons
they were dismissed in Case 17-581. 	See id.
II. 	Complaint Supplement (Doc. No. 4)
Mrs. Amatucci, in her complaint supplement (Doc. No. 4) in
this case, in addition to reiterating claims asserted in her
complaint, asserts claims alleging that the Town: 1) committed
fraud in the state court vexatious litigant proceedings by
objecting to Mrs. Amatucci’s post-trial efforts to submit
evidence of fraud in those proceedings to the court; and 2)
engaged in unspecified “elder abuse” of Mrs. Amatucci.
To the extent the supplement asserts new claims, they arise
under state law. 	Because Mrs. Amatucci has not stated any
federal claim upon which relief might be granted in this case,
the district judge should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the
supplement, and should dismiss those claims without prejudice to
Mrs. Amatucci’s ability to litigate them in state court.
3
Case 1:17-cv-00716-JD Document 8 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 4

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this action in its entirety, without prejudice to Mrs.
Amatucci’s ability to litigate her state law claims in state
court. 	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. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation 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
January 19, 2018
cc: 	Josephine Amatucci, pro se
4
Case 1:17-cv-00716-JD Document 8 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 4