Santiago v. Lacasse et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Enrique Santiago
v. 	Civil No. 21-cv-1086-LM
Kim Lacasse et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Enrique Santiago, who is presently incarcerated in the New
Hampshire Department of Corrections, has filed a complaint (Doc.
No. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that in 2014, while he
was housed at the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”), the
defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 	Mr. Santiago’s
complaint is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR
4.3(d)(1). 	Also before the Court is Mr. Santiago’s “Motion for
Judgment” (Doc. No. 4), which is before the undersigned for a
recommendation as to disposition.
Background and Claims
In his complaint, Mr. Santiago states that in 2014, he was
1 The plaintiff names the following individuals as
defendants in this case: former New Hampshire Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) Classifications Administrator Kim Lacasse,
former New Hampshire State Prison Secure Housing Unit Lt. Mike
Edmark, and DOC Commissioner Helen Hanks.
Case 1:21-cv-01086-LM Document 5 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 6

2
a “C-4” security level prisoner housed in the Secure Housing
Unit at the NHSP. 	Another prisoner, Richard Papineau, who was a
“C-5” security level prisoner, meaning that he was classified as
a maximum security prisoner, was placed in Mr. Santiago’s cell,
despite prison policy mandating that C-5 prisoners be housed
alone. 	Mr. Papineau, at the time he was housed with Mr.
Santiago, was serving a life sentence for murder, and was also
known by the defendants to have a lengthy history of violence
toward prison staff and other prisoners.
After being placed in Mr. Santiago’s cell, Mr. Papineau
attempted to kill Mr. Santiago. 	Mr. Santiago “suffered major
injurys (sic) to face and body[,] was ‘hog tied’ by ‘Papineau’
and left for dead.” 	Compl. (Doc. No. 1, at 5). 	Mr. Santiago
asserts that he continues to experience nightmares and insomnia
as a result of that incident. 	Mr. Papineau was later charged,
convicted, and sentenced for attempted murder based on that 2014
assault on Mr. Santiago. 	See State v. Papineau, No. 16-CR-404
(N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack Cty.).
Seeking damages, injunctive relief, and release from
incarceration, Mr. Santiago now asserts that the defendants, by
housing him with Mr. Papineau, and then failing to separate him
from Mr. Papineau once they were housed together, violated his
Fourteenth Amendment right to be protected from harm at the
Case 1:21-cv-01086-LM Document 5 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 6

3
hands of other inmates and his Eighth Amendment right to humane
conditions of confinement. 	Mr. Santiago further alleges that
his continuing injuries resulting from the 2014 incident violate
his rights under the ADA.
Preliminary Review
I. 	Legal Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of prisoner
complaints seeking relief from government employees or entities.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); LR 4.3(d)(1). 	The filings of pro se
plaintiffs are construed liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). 	The Court takes as true the
plaintiff’s nonconclusory factual allegations, and construes all
reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff’s
favor, to determine whether the plaintiff has asserted
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim’” upon which relief can be granted. 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). 	Claims may be
dismissed at the time of preliminary review if, among other
things, 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. § 1915A(b)(1); LR
4.3(d)(1)(A).
Case 1:21-cv-01086-LM Document 5 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 6

4
II. 	Discussion
A three-year statute of limitations applies to all of Mr.
Santiago's claims. 	See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387
(2007) (Section 1983 claims borrow the state statute of
limitations for general personal injury claims); Donlon v.
Hillsborough Cty., No. 18-cv-549-LM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
78253, at *8, 2019 WL 2062436, at *3 (D.N.H. May 9, 2019)
(recognizing that constitutional claims asserted under § 1983
and the ADA borrows analogous state statute of limitations,
which is the three-year statute governing personal actions);
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4, I (providing three-year statute of
limitations for all personal actions). 	Mr. Santiago filed his
complaint in this case on December 29, 2021, which was at least
seven years after the defendants’ are alleged to have engaged in
conduct that violated Mr. Santiago’s constitutional rights in
2014, and at least four years after the limitations period
applicable to his claims expired. 	Nothing in the complaint
suggests any basis for tolling the three-year limitations period
applicable to his claims. 	Accordingly, the district judge
should dismiss Mr. Santiago’s complaint as untimely filed.
Case 1:21-cv-01086-LM Document 5 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 6

5
Motion for Judgment (Doc. No. 4)
In Mr. Santiago’s “Motion for Judgment,” he asks the Court
to return judgment in his favor within sixty days, and also
reiterates his requests for: monetary damages, injunctive
relief, and release from incarceration. 	Finally, he asks the
Court to schedule a Zoom conference at which the Court can enter
judgment in his favor and set a date for his release.
As discussed above, the undersigned recommends the
dismissal of this case. 	Nothing in the motion provides a basis
to alter that recommendation. 	Accordingly, the District Judge
should deny the motion for judgment.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
the plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Doc. No. 4) and dismiss
this case 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 any objection
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). 	Only those issues raised in
Case 1:21-cv-01086-LM Document 5 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 6

6
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
February 18, 2022
cc: 	Enrique Santiago, pro se
Case 1:21-cv-01086-LM Document 5 Filed 02/18/22 Page 6 of 6