Amatucci v. Greenhalghn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-340-LM-AJ
Charles Greenhalgh, Individually
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Josephine Amatucci, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1/#57691)
alleging that the defendant has violated her federal
constitutional rights. 	The complaint is before the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2). 	Also before the Court for a
recommendation as to disposition are Mrs. Amatucci’s motions for
summary judgment, judgment as a matter of law, and a speedy
trial. 	See Doc. Nos. 3/#5871, 4/#8036, 5/#8046, 6/#5871.
Standard of Review
The court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed
by pro se litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C.
1 As a courtesy to Mrs. Amatucci, the Court includes the
four-digit number she has given to her filings along with the
docket number the Court has assigned to her filings.
Case 1:22-cv-00340-LM-AJ Document 7 Filed 08/08/23 Page 1 of 6

2
§ 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). 	In considering whether a pro se
complaint states a claim, the court construes the pleading
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). 	The court then determines whether, stripped of legal
conclusions, and with all reasonable inferences construed in
plaintiff’s favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Claims may be dismissed, sua sponte, if the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2).
Background
This action concerns Mrs. Amatucci’s criminal prosecution,
which arose from an August 2018 incident at the Town of
Wolfeboro transfer station, which resulted in Mrs. Amatucci
being charged with simple assault, and prosecuted in state
court. 	See State v. Amatucci, No. 464-2018-CR-01490 (N.H. Cir.
Ct., 3d Cir., Dist. Div. – Ossipee (“Ossipee District Court”)).
Ossipee District Court Judge Charles Greenhalgh found Mrs.
Amatucci guilty of simple assault after a November 2019 bench
trial. 	See id.
Case 1:22-cv-00340-LM-AJ Document 7 Filed 08/08/23 Page 2 of 6

3
Claims and Procedural History
All of the claims in this action concern Judge Greenhalgh’s
actions during the November 2019 criminal proceedings against
Mrs. Amatucci. 	Mrs. Amatucci claims that her state court
conviction is void because it is based on fraud, and because
Judge Greenhalgh lacked jurisdiction to hear the case or convict
her.
Mrs. Amatucci has previously filed lawsuits in this Court
naming Judge Greenhalgh as a defendant, alleging the same claims
as those asserted here. 	In Amatucci v. Greenhalgh, No. 21-cv-
238-JL (D.N.H.) (“Case 21-238”), the Court dismissed the case
because Judge Greenhalgh was entitled to absolute judicial
immunity in that matter. 2 	See Case 21-238, Aug. 11, 2021 Order
(ECF No. 12) (approving Aug. 2, 2021 R&R (ECF No. 10)). 	In
Amatucci v. Town of Wolfeboro, No. 21-cv-1081-LM-AJ (“Case 21-
1081”), the Court dismissed the action, including the claims
against Judge Greenhalgh, on the basis that all of the claims
asserted in the action were or could have been brought in Case
2 In her complaint in this case, Mrs. Amatucci identifies
Judge Greenhalgh as “Charles Greenhalgh, Individually,” in an
attempt to persuade the Court that he is not protected by
judicial immunity. 	In Case 21-238, Judge Greenhalgh was
performing judicial functions as a judge of the Ossipee District
Court when he engaged in the conduct underlying Mrs. Amatucci’s
claims in this action and in Case 21-1081. 	Mrs. Amatucci’s
identification of Judge Greenhalgh as an “individual” in the
caption of her complaint does not disentitle him to the
protection of judicial immunity.
Case 1:22-cv-00340-LM-AJ Document 7 Filed 08/08/23 Page 3 of 6

4
21-238, and were therefore barred by res judicata. 	See Case 21-
1081, Mar. 28, 2022 Order (ECF. No. 9) (approving Feb. 28, 2022
R&R (ECF No. 7)).
As noted above, in this action, Mrs. Amatucci asserts
claims against Judge Greenhalgh which she previously asserted in
Case 21-238 and 21-1081, which have both been dismissed. 	Mrs.
Amatucci did not appeal either case to the First Circuit.
Further, the post-judgment motions she filed in each of those
cases have been denied. 	See Case 21-238, Dec. 29, 2021 Order,
Jan. 10, 2022 Order, Jan. 11, 2022 Order, Jan. 20, 2022 Orders,
Feb. 25, 2022 Order, June 21, 2022 Order, July 8, 2022 Order
(Doc. No. 32); Case 21-1081, Mar. 6, 2023 Order.
Discussion
I. 	Claim Preclusion/Res Judicata
“Under the federal law of claim preclusion, ‘a final
judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or
their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have
been raised in that action.’” 	Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc.,
699 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 	“‘The three
elements of claim preclusion are (1) a final judgment on the
merits in an earlier proceeding, (2) sufficient identicality
between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later
Case 1:22-cv-00340-LM-AJ Document 7 Filed 08/08/23 Page 4 of 6

5
suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in
the two actions.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Mrs. Amatucci’s claims against Judge Greenhalgh in this
case meet each element of res judicata, with respect to the
parties, causes of action, and judgments in Cases 21-238 and 21-
1081. 	She is thus barred from litigating any of the claims
asserted in this case. 	Accordingly, the District Judge should
dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this case in its entirety.
II. 	Pending Motions
Mrs. Amatucci has filed four motions (Doc. Nos. 3-6) for
summary judgment, judgment as a matter of law, and/or a speedy
trial in this case. 	Because the claims upon which Mrs. Amatucci
relief in her motion should be dismissed, the District Judge
should deny those motions as nonmeritorious.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should
dismiss this action in its entirety as barred by res judicata.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion.
Failure to file any objection within the specified time waives
Case 1:22-cv-00340-LM-AJ Document 7 Filed 08/08/23 Page 5 of 6

6
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.’” 	Id. 	Additionally, any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” 	Id. (citations omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 8, 2023
cc: 	Josephine Amatucci, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00340-LM-AJ Document 7 Filed 08/08/23 Page 6 of 6