Doe v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John Doe1
v. Civil No. 21-cv-604-LM
N.H. Department of Corrections
Commissioner et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed a motion (Doc. No. 72) asking the Court
to allow him to join the New Hampshire Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) Classifications Department as a defendant to this
action. The defendants filed an objection (Doc. No. 74), to
which the plaintiff replied (Doc. No. 78). The motion is before
this Court for a Report and Recommendation as to disposition.
Standard
The proposed joinder of a defendant in a civil case is
“‘governed by Rule 21, which provides that the court may at any
time, on just terms, add or drop a party.’” Gigunda Grp., Inc.
v. Creative Collective Grp., No. 15-cv-104-LM, U.S. Dist. LEXIS
151771, at *4, 2015 WL 6872281, at *1, 2015 (D.N.H. Nov. 9,
2015) (citation omitted). “[C]ourts freely give leave to amend
1Plaintiff’s name appears in plaintiff’s filings. The court
has provisionally altered the case caption for reasons set forth
in its August 13, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 11).
Case 1:21-cv-00604-LM-AJ Document 87 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 4

2
where justice so requires, unless the amendment would be futile
or reward undue delay.” Hornof v. United States, No. 2:19-cv-
00198-JDL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79853 at *2, 2021 WL 1651193,
at *1 (D. Me. Apr. 27, 2021).
Discussion
In his instant motion, the plaintiff simply asks to add the
Classification Department as a defendant to this action.
Plaintiff states no facts to demonstrate that he can assert a
claim against the Classifications Department upon which relief
might be granted. Even if the plaintiff had asserted facts in
support of his request to join that department to this case, his
motion should be denied as futile for the reasons discussed
below.
To the extent the plaintiff seeks to assert a claim for
damages against the Classifications Department, such claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which provides state agencies
immunity from damages suits. See Town of Barnstable v.
O’Connor, 786 F.3d 130, 138 (1st Cir. 2015) (Eleventh Amendment
generally precludes plaintiff from suing the State “including
instrumentalities of the state, such as state agencies”
(citation omitted)). As the Classifications Department is part
of the DOC, a state agency, it is an “instrumentalit[y] of the
state, and thus is immune from such a suit.” Id.
Case 1:21-cv-00604-LM-AJ Document 87 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 4

3
Further, the plaintiff does not state that he seeks
injunctive relief against the Classifications Department. Even
if he had, however, the Court notes that the plaintiff has been
released from state custody. Accordingly, there is likely no
injunctive relief the Court could grant to the plaintiff
relating to a claim against the Classifications Department. See
Ford v. Bender, 768 F.3d 15, 29 (1st Cir. 2014) (where
injunctive relief is sought, a “challenge to prison conditions
or policies is generally rendered moot by [a prisoner’s]
transfer or release” as he no longer has a “‘legally cognizable
interest in a judicial decision on the merits of his claim’” for
injunctive relief).
As explained herein, the plaintiff has not demonstrated
that he can assert any cognizable claim against the
Classifications Department. Accordingly, the District Judge
should deny the plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 72) to join the
Classifications Department to this action as futile.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should deny
the plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 72) to amend his complaint to
join the DOC Classifications Department as a defendant to this
action. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See
Case 1:21-cv-00604-LM-AJ Document 87 Filed 08/14/24 Page 3 of 4

4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections
“‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues
“‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’”
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016) (citations omitted).
_______________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 14, 2024
cc: Plaintiff John Doe, pro se
Brandon Francis Chase, Esq.
Laura Raymond, Esq.
Case 1:21-cv-00604-LM-AJ Document 87 Filed 08/14/24 Page 4 of 4