Noel v. United Better Homes, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
ARNOLD A. NOEL
v. Civil No. 1:23-cv-00028-SJM-TLSM
BRIAN COUTCHER, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS
Self-represented Plaintiff, Arnold A. Noel (“Noel”), brings this action against his former
employer and a number of affiliated entities and individuals seeking damages for the financial and
emotional injuries he claims he suffered as a result of “Defendants’ concerted efforts to defraud,
discriminate against, and unjustly enrich themselves” by misappropriating his intellectual property,
maligning his professional reputation, and engaging in “a series of deceitful, discriminatory, and
retaliatory actions” against him. Doc. No. 16 at ¶ 2. On December 9, 2025, this court issued an
Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 99) directing Noel to show cause, by December 23, 2025, as to
why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Noel failed to respond to the Show
Cause Order.1 Instead, on December 24, 2025, he filed a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No.
100), without an accompanying motion to amend, in which he seeks to assert new claims, unrelated
to the existing claims in this case, against more than eighty entities and individuals, including
various attorneys and law firms, state agencies and officials, state and federal court judges, and
employees from the United States Marshals’ Service.
1 On January 21, 2026, the undersigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 104) recommending that the district judge dismiss this case with prejudice, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 41, for failure to prosecute.
Case 1:23-cv-00028-SJM-TLSM Document 105 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Currently before the court is Noel’s “Verified Motion to Compel Issuance of Summons
Forthwith and to Confirm Operative Status of Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 102), to which
Defendants2 object (Doc. No. 103). In his Motion, Noel asserts that his Third Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 100) is the “sole operative pleading in this action,” and thus, he requests that the court
order the Clerk to issue summonses to him. Doc. No. 102 at pgs. 3-4. For the reasons that follow,
the district judge should deny Noel’s Motion and strike the Third Amended Complaint from the
record.
DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that the court should deny Noel’s Motion to compel issuance of his
Third Amended Complaint because the Third Amended Complaint does not comply with the Local
Rules for the District of Rhode Island. Doc. No. 103-1 at pg.1.
Local Rule Cv 15 provides:
A motion to amend a pleading shall be filed in accordance with LR Cv 7, explain
how the amended pleading differs from the original and why the amendment is
necessary, and be accompanied by a complete and signed copy of the proposed
amended pleading. If the motion to amend is granted, the Clerk shall file the
proposed amended pleading.
Here, Noel did not file a motion to amend, nor did he explain how the proposed amended
pleading differs from the operative Complaint (Doc. No. 16). Instead, he simply filed the Third
Amended Complaint. Because Noel’s Third Amended Complaint does not comply with DRI LR
Cv 15, Noel’s Motion to compel the issuance of summonses for the same should be denied.
The district judge should deny Noel’s Motion for the additional independent reason that
his failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 renders his Third Amended
2 The following Defendants filed a joint objection: Stephen M. Russell, Izabela Russell, Marc
Thebaud, UBH Solar, Derek Moore, and Brian Croutcher. Doc. No. 103.
Case 1:23-cv-00028-SJM-TLSM Document 105 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Complaint ineffective. Therefore, Noel is not entitled to the issuance of summonses or a ruling
that the Third Amended Complaint is the operative pleading in this case.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under
Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “Once a party has exhausted
its one-time right to amend as a matter of course, it may make further amendments only with the
opposing party’s consent or with leave of court.” United States ex rel. D’Agostino v. EV3, Inc.,
802 F.3d 188, 192 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). Because the deadline for
amending his complaint as a matter of course has long expired, Noel was required to obtain
Defendants’ consent or leave of court before filing his Third Amended Complaint. His failure to
do so renders that pleading ineffective. Therefore, the district judge should deny Noel’s request to
confirm that the Third Amended Complaint is the “sole operative pleading,” and deny his request
that the clerk issue summonses for the Third Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 102 at pg. 4.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny Noel’s “Verified
Motion to Compel Issuance of Summons Forthwith and to Confirm Operative Status of Amended
Complaint.” Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this notice. 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”
and any issues “not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Sch. Union No. 37 v.
Case 1:23-cv-00028-SJM-TLSM Document 105 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir. 1988)).
___________________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
Sitting by designation
January 22, 2026
cc: Arnold A. Noel, pro se
Counsel of record
Case 1:23-cv-00028-SJM-TLSM Document 105 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>