Thomas v. NH District Attorney's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christina L. Thomas
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-158-JD
Warden, New Hampshire Correctional Facility for Women1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christina L. Thomas has petitioned this court for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging her state
conviction and sentence. 	Thomas was an inmate in the Secure
Psychiatric Unit (“SPU”) in the New Hampshire State Prison when
she filed this action, and she named the prosecutor in her
criminal case as the respondent.
After Thomas identified the prosecutor as the respondent,
counsel representing the Strafford County Attorney’s Office
filed an appearance. 	To streamline the docket, the magistrate
judge recommends that the district judge drop the Strafford
County Attorney’s Office and the “New Hampshire District
Attorney’s Office” as parties. 	See Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d
688, 691 (1st Cir. 2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 	Although
this court previously added the New Hampshire Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) Commissioner to the docket when Thomas was
1The Order issued this date directs the clerk’s office to
update the docket to identify the Warden of the New Hampshire
Correctional Facility for Women as the respondent in this case.
Case 1:18-cv-00158-JD Document 19 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 2

2
housed in SPU, information on the state Inmate Locator website,
https://business.nh.gov/inmate_locator/, indicates that the
Warden of the New Hampshire Correctional Facility for Women
(“NCFW”) is Thomas’s current custodian. 	Therefore, all other
parties listed as respondents should be dropped as parties.
Conclusion
To streamline the docket in the interest of judicial
economy, the district judge should direct that the DOC
Commissioner, the Strafford County Attorney’s Office, and the
“New Hampshire District Attorney’s Office,” be terminated as
parties, leaving the NCFW Warden as the sole respondent. 	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 this
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
December 4, 2018
cc: 	Christina L. Thomas, pro se
Thomas P. Velardi, Esq.
Case 1:18-cv-00158-JD Document 19 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 2