Blackmer v. US District Court - NH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PAUL BLACKMER 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 1:18-cv-00188-JJM1
:
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 	:
for STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 27, 2018, Petitioner Paul Blackmer initiated this action by filing a “Motion
For Obviously Needed Injunctive Relief.” Because Petitioner is a state prison inmate and seeks
in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this matter is subject to the requirements
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act including preliminary screening (28 U.S.C. § 1915A) and
the so-called “three strikes” rule (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
Petitioner is a prolific filer. The District of New Hampshire has previously and correctly
ruled that he is subject to the three strikes restriction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	See
Blackmer v. Merrimack Cty. Super. Ct., No. 12-cv-461-JD, 2013 WL 322209, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10965 (D.N.H. Jan. 8, 2013), report and recommendation adopted No. 12-cv-461-JD,
2013 WL 322201, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10969 (D.N.H. Jan. 28, 2013), aff’d, No. 13-1407 (1st
Cir. Mar. 7, 2014). This means that unless Petitioner shows that he is exposed to an “imminent
danger of serious physical injury,” an in forma pauperis application must be denied. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). 	Petitioner has failed to show that he is in imminent danger of such injury.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court deny the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
1 	This case has been reassigned to judicial officers of the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island due to the recusal of all of the active judicial officers in the District of New Hampshire.
Case 1:18-cv-00188-JJM Document 12 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 3

-2-
Pauperis (ECF Doc. No. 10), and order Petitioner to pay the filing fee within thirty days, to
avoid dismissal of this case.
In the alternative, I recommend that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b) for failure to state any viable legal claim upon which relief may be granted.
Petitioner’s 	“Motion 	for 	Obviously 	Needed 	Injunctive 	Relief” 	is 	disjointed 	and
incomprehensible. 	Petitioner appears to have initiated this action in reaction to an “Endorsed
Order” entered by Senior District Judge McAuliffe on February 1, 2018. See Paul Blackmer v.
State of New Hampshire, Case No. 1:17-cv-00041-SM (D.N.H.) (characterizing Petitioner’s
filing in that case as one for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissing it as an
improper successive petition). In that Order, Judge McAuliffe ruled that Petitioner’s Motion for
Order to be Provided With Free Needed Legal Copies pertains to matters not determinable in the
closed habeas case and that, if any relief is warranted at all, it would have to be sought in a
separate proceeding. While Petitioner references his claimed need for legal copies in this action,
he does not directly allege that the Defendant in this action (the U.S. District Court for the State
of New Hampshire) has denied any request for “legal copies.” 	He does allege that the DOC
(presumably the New Hampshire Department of Corrections) has refused “to make needed legal
copies” for him and that his legal file was the subject of “unlawful seizure” during a prison unit
transfer. (ECF Doc. No. 1 at pp. 1 and 3). Petitioner does not, however, name the State of New
Hampshire or its Department of Corrections as a defendant in this action. In the end, Petitioner
does not articulate any legally viable claims against the “United States District Court for State of
New Hampshire” or any viable legal basis for obtaining “Obviously Needed Injunctive Relief”
from such Court.
Case 1:18-cv-00188-JJM Document 12 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 3

-3-
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed
with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of its receipt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR Cv
72. Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review
by the District Court and the right to appeal the District Court’s decision. 	See United States v.
Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616
F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980).
/s/ Lincoln D. Almond
LINCOLN D. ALMOND
United States Magistrate Judge
April 20, 2018
Case 1:18-cv-00188-JJM Document 12 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of 3