Amatucci v. Chase et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. Civil No. 17-cv-582-JL
Stuart Chase et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court for preliminary review is Josephine
Amatucci’s complaint (Doc. No. 1), asserting violations of her
rights under the federal constitution and state law. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). In the body of her
complaint, Mrs. Amatucci indicates that she intends this action
to be consolidated with another related case before this court,
Amatucci v. Chase, 17-cv-237-JL (D.N.H.) (“Chase I”).
Background
On May 7, 2014, former Wolfeboro Police Department (“WPD”)
Chief Stuart Chase arrested Mrs. Amatucci for disobeying a
police officer when Mrs. Amatucci failed to pull over for police
officers with activated blue lights and sirens. Mrs. Amatucci
states that she did not stop because she was on the way to the
1In the caption of the complaint (Doc. No. 1), Mrs. Amatucci
names the Wolfeboro Police Department (“WPD”) and former WPD
Chief Stuart Chase as defendants to this action.
Case 1:17-cv-00582-JL Document 3 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 6

2
Carroll County Sheriff’s Department (“CCSD”) to report that,
earlier that day, Chase had warned her that he would “arrest her
on the spot” if she complained about the police, and that Chase
knew Mrs. Amatucci, after that warning, had attempted to
complain to Town of Wolfeboro officials about Chase, and was on
her way to the CCSD to complain about Chase.
Mrs. Amatucci, once she stopped her car, was arrested for
speeding and disobeying a police officer. After trial on those
charges, Mrs. Amatucci was found not guilty of speeding and was
convicted of disobeying a police officer after a bench trial.
See June 25, 2015 Order After Trial on Merits, State v.
Amatucci, No. 464-2014-CR-836 (N.H. Cir. Ct., 3d Cir., Dist.
Div., Carroll Cty.). Here, Mrs. Amatucci seeks to challenge the
propriety of her arrest and prosecution for disobeying a police
officer, on the basis that her acquittal for speeding equates to
a finding by the state trial court that there was no probable
cause to arrest her for disobeying a police officer.
Mrs. Amatucci asserts that Chase’s actions on May 7, 2014,
violated her First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as
well as her rights under state law. Mrs. Amatucci also claims
that Chase’s actions on that date were part of a pattern of
retaliation against Mrs. Amatucci for her complaints against
members of the WPD over the several years before the May 7, 2014
Case 1:17-cv-00582-JL Document 3 Filed 11/17/17 Page 2 of 6

3
incident.
Mrs. Amatucci also asserts a fraud claim here, alleging
that the state court prosecutor in her speeding and disobeying a
police officer trial deprived her of exculpatory evidence
concerning her state of mind on May 7, 2014. Specifically, Mrs.
Amatucci alleges that May 7, 2014 video footage from the WPD
lobby demonstrates that she was threatened and assaulted by
Chase minutes before the motor vehicle pursuit that resulted in
her arrest. Mrs. Amatucci claims that, at her criminal trial,
the prosecutor suppressed the May 7, 2014 video, and instead
presented a 2013 video of Mrs. Amatucci at the WPD, claiming it
was the May 7, 2014 video.
Discussion
In this case, Mrs. Amatucci has asserted a number of
federal constitutional and state law claims arising out of the
events of May 7, 2014 and the ensuing prosecution. Those events
also gave rise to claims litigated by Mrs. Amatucci in a prior
federal case, see Amatucci v. O’Brien, No. 15-cv-356-JL (D.N.H.)
(“O’Brien”). O’Brien provides a basis for applying the doctrine
of res judicata to bar most of the claims asserted here.
When the preclusive effect of a federal judgment by a court
exercising federal question jurisdiction is at issue, the court
Case 1:17-cv-00582-JL Document 3 Filed 11/17/17 Page 3 of 6

4
applies federal law of claim preclusion. Maher v. GSI Lumonics,
Inc., 433 F.3d 123, 126 (1st Cir. 2005). “Under the federal law
of claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action
precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating claims
that were raised or could have been raised in that action.”
Hatch v. Trail King Indus., 699 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2012).
“Claim preclusion applies if (1) the earlier suit resulted in a
judgment on the merits, (2) the causes of action asserted in the
earlier and later suits are sufficiently identical or related,
and (3) the parties in the two suits are sufficiently identical
or closely related.” Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601
F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 2010).
All of the defendants in this action were defendants in
O’Brien, and all of the causes of action asserted here were
asserted in O’Brien. The identity of the parties and causes of
action here and in O’Brien are sufficiently related to warrant
application of res judicata.
The court in O’Brien issued a judgment on the merits as to
all claims in that case, and then altered that judgment to
dismiss without prejudice Mrs. Amatucci’s malicious prosecution
claims under state and federal law, for prosecuting her
maliciously for speeding, without probable cause. See November
17, 2017 Order, O’Brien (ECF No. 229). Mrs. Amatucci has,
Case 1:17-cv-00582-JL Document 3 Filed 11/17/17 Page 4 of 6

5
however, asserted those claims in another action in this court,
Chase I. In an Order issued in Chase I, the court has directed
service of the malicious prosecution claims asserted here
against the essentially the same set of defendants named in this
action.2 This case is duplicative of Chase I, with respect to
those malicious prosecution claims, and those claims may be
dismissed, without prejudice, as duplicative of that prior case.
All of the remaining claims in this lawsuit, arising out of the
events of May 7, 2014 and the ensuing prosecution, are barred by
the doctrine of res judicata, in light of the prior judgment in
O’Brien.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the
district judge dismiss this action in its entirety and deny Mrs.
Amatucci’s motion to consolidate this case with Amatucci v.
Chase, No. 17-cv-237-JL (D.N.H.) as moot. 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).
2In Chase I, Mrs. Amatucci has named the Town of Wolfeboro,
rather than the Wolfeboro Police Department, as a defendant. As
the claim proceeding against the Town of Wolfeboro is based on
municipal liability, the WPD and the Town are the same entity
for purposes of defending the lawsuit.
Case 1:17-cv-00582-JL Document 3 Filed 11/17/17 Page 5 of 6

6
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); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
November 17, 2017
cc: Josephine Amatucci, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00582-JL Document 3 Filed 11/17/17 Page 6 of 6