Amatucci v. Wolfeboro, NH, Town of

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. 	Case No. 25-cv-549-SM-AJ
Town of Wolfeboro
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Josephine Amatucci, appearing in
forma pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against the
Town of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, alleging that its police chief
violated her constitutional rights by accusing her of a traffic
violation and attempting to have her driver’s license revoked.1
Mrs. Amatucci’s complaint is before the undersigned magistrate
judge for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2).
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mrs. Amatucci’s, that are filed in forma
pauperis. 	See LR 4.3(d). 	The magistrate judge may recommend to
the district judge that one or more claims be dismissed if,
among other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is
1 Mrs. Amatucci asserted several other claims in her
complaint that arose out of events subject to filing
restrictions and are therefore not before the court. See Order
(Doc. No. 2).
Case 1:25-cv-00549-SM-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 5

2
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). In conducting its preliminary review, the
court construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint must
contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all well-
pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable inferences
in plaintiff’s favor. 	See Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset,
640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Background
Mrs. Amatucci claims that Dean Rondeau, the former
Wolfeboro Chief of Police, accused her of a traffic violation in
New Hampshire and ordered the New Hampshire Department of Motor
Vehicle to re-evaluate her fitness for a driver’s license, with
the intent of having her license revoked. Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶
7. She further alleges that she was able to prove that she was
not in Wolfeboro at the time of the alleged traffic violation.
Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she claims that former Chief Rondeau
violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that the
Town of Wolfeboro is responsible for his actions.
Mrs. Amatucci does not indicate in her complaint when the
incident with former Chief Rondeau took place. However, based on
Case 1:25-cv-00549-SM-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 5

3
two other cases Mrs. Amatucci has filed in this court in 2013
and 2014, it is apparent that the events took place in August
2013. See Amatucci v. Welman, et al., Civ. No. 14-cv-164-PB
(D.N.H. filed Apr. 7, 2014), Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶ 10 (“This was
a bogus traffic violation as the plaintiff was not in Wolfeboro
on August 21, 2013 at 12 noon.”); Amatucci v. Town of Wolfeboro,
Civ. No. 13-cv-501-PB (D.N.H. filed Oct. 15, 2013), Compl. (Doc.
No. 1) ¶ (n) (“On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received a
letter from the Department of Safety . . . ordering her to
appear for a . . . road test . . . due to information from the
Wolfeboro Police Department, Lt. Rondeau, that she was driving
erratically . . . .”).
Discussion
The passage of roughly twelve years between the incident in
question and the filing of this lawsuit raises the question of
whether the complaint was filed within the applicable statute of
limitations. See Beaulieu v. Winters, No. 15-CV-00004-JL, 2015
WL 3507914, at *2 (D.N.H. June 3, 2015) (“Where the facts
alleged in the complaint show that the claims are time-barred,
and there is no possibility that the statute may have been
tolled, the court may dismiss the complaint on preliminary
review.) (citing Pigott v. Lynn Police Dep't, 7 F.3d 218, 1993
WL 375821, at *5 (1st Cir. Sept.27, 1993)). It is clear from the
facts in the instant complaint and her two previous lawsuits Ms.
Case 1:25-cv-00549-SM-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Amatucci has filed based on the same incident that her claims
are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Section 1983 cases borrow the relevant limitations period
applied in personal injury cases in the state where the claim
arose. Rose v. Governor, State of New Hampshire, No. 19-CV-311-
LM, 2019 WL 3938081, at *2 (D.N.H. July 12, 2019), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Rose v. NH, No. 19-CV-311-LM,
2019 WL 3935365 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2019), aff'd sub nom. Rose v.
Sununu, No. 19-2039, 2020 WL 6472396 (1st Cir. June 8, 2020).
The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims arising out of
events occurring in New Hampshire is three years. See Gorelik v.
Costin, 605 F.3d 118, 121 (1st Cir. 2010); see also N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 508:4.
As noted above, the allegedly fraudulent traffic violation
and ensuing report to the Department of Safety occurred in
August 2013. The three-year limitations period for filing suit
concerning that occurrence expired no later than August 2016.
Nothing in the complaint suggests that the limitations period
should be tolled to allow the court to deem it timely filed.
Accordingly, the statute of limitations bars Mrs. Amatucci’s
claims.2
2 The court also dismissed several claims in Amatucci v.
Welman based on the same incident as alleged here because they
failed to state a federal claim upon which relief could be
granted. See id., May 19, 2014, Order (Doc. No. 5). Thus, in
Case 1:25-cv-00549-SM-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Mrs. Amatucci’s claims are barred
by the applicable statute of limitations. The District Judge
should therefore dismiss this case.
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. 	(cleaned up). Additionally, any issues “not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Id.
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 8, 2026
cc: 	Josephine Amatucci, pro se
addition to the expiration of the statute of limitations, this
suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Rafsky v.
Smallbizpros, Inc., No. CV 20-11148-TSH, 2024 WL 1178375, at *2
(D. Mass. Mar. 19, 2024) (“The doctrine of res judicata
establishes that claims arising from the same transaction or a
common nucleus of operative facts that have been fully
adjudicated on the merits are barred from further litigation.”)
(citing Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9, 12 (1st
Cir. 2010)).
Case 1:25-cv-00549-SM-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 5