Amatucci v. Varney et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-308-JL
Robert Varney et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Josephine Amatucci, proceeding pro se, has filed this
action under 41 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a state court judge
and two federal court judges committed fraud on the court in the
judicial decisions and orders they have issued in other cases in
which she has been involved. 	The complaint (Doc. Nos. 1
(#5351), 6 (#5429)) is before the court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and LR 4.3(d)(2). 	Also
before the court for consideration and a recommendation as to
disposition are: (1) Mrs. Amatucci’s motion for in forma
pauperis status, (2) Mrs. Amatucci’s “Motion for Rule 60(d)(3)”
(# 5385) and (3) “An Independent Motion to Set Aside the
Judgment” (# 5432).
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
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
Case 1:21-cv-00308-JL Document 8 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 4

2
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).
Discussion
Mrs. Amatucci has been involved in many legal cases in
state and federal court. 	Her allegations in this case challenge
decisions made by a state court judge and two federal judges
concerning a restraining order issued by another state court
judge against Mrs. Amatucci. 	The decisions she challenges are
related to her arrest in 2003, a restraining order issued in
state court, and her subsequent efforts to challenge that
result. 1 	She states that the judges have committed “fraud upon
the court” by misrepresenting the meaning of the restraining
order, and she seeks one million dollars in damages. 	She also
1 Mrs. Amatucci brought multiple cases challenging those
proceedings, which caused her to be restricted from filing
additional cases on the same issues. 	See Amatucci v. New
Hampshire Supreme Court, 2014 WL 1764739 (D.N.H. May 2, 2014);
Amatucci v. Varney, 2013 WL 3990808 (D.N.H. Aug. 2, 2013)
Case 1:21-cv-00308-JL Document 8 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 4

3
asks that judgments in other cases be vacated pursuant to Rule
60(b)(3).
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 the rulings and decisions of the
defendant judges. 	Those matters fall directly into the category
of traditional adjudicatory functions that are protected by
judicial immunity. 	Therefore, her claims should be dismissed.
Motions
Mrs. Amatucci has filed a motion (Doc. No. 2) for in forma
pauperis status. 	Because the complaint fails to state any
claim, that motion should be denied as moot.
Case 1:21-cv-00308-JL Document 8 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 4

4
Mrs. Amatucci has also filed two motions (Doc. Nos. 5, 7)
seeking to vacate judgments in other cases in which she was
involved. 	In support of her motions she claims entitlement to
relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 60(b) does not apply in the context it is raised in this
case, and Mrs. Amatucci’s motions should be denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the complaint in its entirety and deny Mrs. Amatucci’s
motion for in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 2) and motions
asserted under Rule 60(b) (Doc. Nos. 5, 7). 	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. 	See 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-00308-JL Document 8 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 4