Amatucci v. Greenhalgh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. Civil No. 21-cv-238-JL
Charles Greenhalgh
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Josephine Amatucci, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1, #5248) and amended
complaint (Doc. No. 4, #5249)1 against Judge Charles Greenhalgh,
a state court judge who presided in a case in which Mrs.
Amatucci alleges she was wrongfully convicted of assault. She
alleges that Judge Greenhalgh violated her constitutional rights
in that proceeding. The complaint is before the court for
preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3.
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.
§ 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). In considering whether a pro se
complaint states a claim, the court construes the pleading
1 The court construes Document Nos. 1 and 4, in the
aggregate, to be the complaint in this case.
Case 1:21-cv-00238-JL Document 10 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 4

2
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
Mrs. Amatucci was charged with assault in November 2018.
See State v. Amatucci, No. 464-2018-CR-01490 (N.H. Cir. Ct., 3d
Cir., Dist. Div. – Ossipee). She unsuccessfully attempted to
have the charge dismissed, and the trial was eventually held on
November 21, 2019. Judge Greenhalgh found Mrs. Amatucci guilty
of assault, imposed a fine of $620 which was suspended for one
year, conditioned on her good behavior during that year. Judge
Greenhalgh also required that she attend anger management
counseling. Mrs. Amatucci filed several motions to overturn the
guilty verdict against her, which were either resolved against
her or remain pending in state court.
Case 1:21-cv-00238-JL Document 10 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 4

3
In her complaint, Mrs. Amatucci challenges Judge
Greenhalgh’s status as a judge, his jurisdiction in the criminal
case, the evidence presented against her, and the rulings he
made in the case. She seeks one million dollars in damages from
Judge Greenhalgh, alleging that he caused “severe mental anguish
upon the Plaintiff a person of 82 years old.” Doc. no. 1, ¶ 19.
Discussion
Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, judges are
“absolutely immune from liability for [their] judicial acts even
if [their] exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of
grave procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359
(1978). Judges are immune from civil liability although the
challenged judicial acts “are in excess of their jurisdiction
and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.”
Id. at 356. A judicial act is a function normally performed by
a judge, a “traditional adjudicatory function.” Zenon v.
Guzman, 924 F.3d 611, 616 (1st Cir. 2019). A judge’s rulings,
decisions, and orders in a case before him or her are part of
the traditional adjudicatory functions of a judge, which are
protected by judicial immunity. Id. at 616-17.
Mrs. Amatucci challenges Judge Greenhalgh’s rulings and
decisions in the state criminal case against her. Her
Case 1:21-cv-00238-JL Document 10 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 4

4
allegations that Judge Greenhalgh was not acting as a judge and
that he lacked jurisdiction in the case when he made those
rulings and decisions are incorrect. The actions she alleges
fall directly into the category of traditional adjudicatory
functions that are protected by judicial immunity. Accordingly,
the district judge should dismiss this case in its entirety.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the complaint (Doc. Nos. 1,4) in its entirety. 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 objections within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 2, 2021
cc: Josephine Amatucci, pro se
Case 1:21-cv-00238-JL Document 10 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 4