Amatucci v. Wolfeboro, NH, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Josephine Amatucci
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-1081-LM
Town of Wolfeboro, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Josephine Amatucci, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 11), an addendum
to that complaint (Doc. No. 42), and a document entitled
“Response to Endorced [sic] Order Dated 1/18/2022” (Doc. No. 53),
which the Court construes as a complaint addendum, against the
Town of Wolfeboro (“Town”), Wolfeboro Police Department (“WPD”)
Chief Dean Rondeau, WPD Prosecutor Timothy Morgan, Belknap
County Sheriff’s Department (“BCSD”) Sgt. William Wright, BCSD
Prosecutor Judy Estes, Town Employee Steve Champaign, and Judge
Charles L. Greenhalgh. 	The complaint is before the court for
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR
4.3(d)(2).
1 Mrs. Amatucci has identified the document docketed as
Document No. 1 in this case as #5557.
2 Mrs. Amatucci has identified the document docketed
Document No. 4 in this case as #5584.
3 Mrs. Amatucci has identified the document docketed as
Document No. 1 in this case as #5598.
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 1 of 8

2
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
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 an August 2018 incident at the Town
dump in which Mrs. Amatucci was accused of pushing a Town dump
employee, Robert Maloney. 	WPD Chief Rondeau asked the BCSD to
investigate the incident, and the matter was handled by BCSD
Sgt. Wright. 	Mrs. Amatucci was ultimately prosecuted for simple
assault in state court. 	See State v. Amatucci, No. 464-2018-CR-
01490 (N.H. Cir. Ct., 3d Cir., Dist. Div. – Ossipee (“Ossipee
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 2 of 8

3
District Court”)). 	Ossipee District Court Judge Greenhalgh
found Mrs. Amatucci guilty of simple assault after a November
2019 bench trial. 	See id.
Claims
All of the claims in this action concern the August 2018
dump incident and the investigation and criminal prosecution
arising therefrom. 	In her complaint, Mrs. Amatucci alleges that
the defendants subjected her to false arrest, false
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment; and that the defendants obtained a warrant
and caused her to be arrested for simple assault without
probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Additionally, 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, in this Court, the
below-listed cases asserting the claims she asserts here,
against the defendants named in this case:
• 	Amatucci v. Rondeau, No. 19-cv-156-JL (D.N.H.) (“Case 19-
156”) (voluntarily dismissed by Mrs. Amatucci May 20,
2019), see May 20, 2019, Pl.’s Voluntary Dismissal, Case
19-156 (ECF No. 44);
4 Mrs. Amatucci has identified the document docketed as
Document No. 4 in Case 19-156 as #4433.
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 3 of 8

4
• 	Amatucci v. Wolfeboro, 19-cv-531-JD (D.N.H.) (“Case 19-
531”) (dismissed Mar. 2, 2020), see Mar. 2, 2020 Order,
Case 19-531 (ECF No. 7);
• 	Amatucci v. Wolfeboro, No. 20-cv-449-JL (D.N.H.) (“Case 20-
449”) (dismissed Aug. 11, 2021), see Aug. 11, 2021 Order,
Case 20-449 (ECF No. 21) (approving Aug. 2, 2021 R&R (ECF
No. 18)); and
• 	Amatucci v. Greenhalgh, 21-cv-238-JL (D.N.H.) (“Case 21-
238”) (dismissed Aug. 11, 2021), see Aug. 11, 2021 Order,
Case 21-238 (ECF No. 12) (approving Aug. 2, 2021 R&R (ECF
No. 10)).
Discussion
I. 	Claim Preclusion/Res Judicata
The doctrine of claim preclusion, sometimes called res
judicata, precludes a plaintiff from asserting claims in a
lawsuit which were previously asserted in an earlier suit, if
“‘(1) the earlier suit resulted in a final judgment on the
merits, (2) the causes of action asserted in the earlier and
later suits are sufficiently identical or related, and (3) the
parties in the two suits are sufficiently identical or closely
related.’” 	Metzler Asset Mgmt. GmbH v. Kinsley, 928 F.3d 151,
156 (1st Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 	The doctrine of claim
preclusion also “bars parties from relitigating claims that
could have been made in an earlier suit,” even if they were not
actually made in the earlier suit. 	Airframe Sys., Inc. v.
Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 2010). 	A dismissal for
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 4 of 8

5
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted
constitutes a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res
judicata. 	See AVX Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28, 30 (1st
Cir. 2005).
II. 	Previous Decisions on the Merits
A. 	Case 19-531
The claims Mrs. Amatucci asserts in her complaint in this
case were, or could have been, asserted in Case 19-531, which
concerned the August 2018 dump incident. 	Case 19-531 named
defendants who are either named as defendants here, or in
privity with those named as defendants here (with the exception
of Mrs. Amatucci’s claims against Judge Greenhalgh which are
discussed below). 	Case 19-531 was dismissed on the merits and
Mrs. Amatucci did not appeal that decision to the First Circuit.
See Mar. 2, 2020 Order, Case 19-531 (ECF No. 7). 	Final judgment
entered in that case on March 2, 2020. 	See Mar. 2, 2020
Judgment, Case 19-531 (ECF No. 8).
B. 	Case 21-238
In the instant case, Mrs. Amatucci asserts claims against
Judge Greenhalgh arising out of the August 2018 dump incident.
In Case 21-238, Mrs. Amatucci sued Judge Greenhalgh, asserting
claims arising out of the August 2018 dump incident. 	Case 21-
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 5 of 8

6
238 was dismissed on the basis that Judge Greenhalgh was
entitled to judicial immunity, and the action, therefore, could
not proceed against him, and Mrs. Amatucci did not appeal that
decision to the First Circuit. 	See Aug. 11, 2021 Order, Case
21-238 (ECF No. 12) (approving Aug. 2, 2021 R&R (ECF No. 10)).
Final judgment entered in that case on August 11, 2021. 	See
Aug. 11, 2021 Judgment, Case 21-238 (ECF No. 13).
A dismissal based on judicial immunity is a decision on the
merits for purposes of claim preclusion. 	See Lewis v. Suthers,
480 F. App'x 415, 416 (7th Cir. 2012); Bush v. Wash. Mut. Bank,
No. 1:07-CV-0009-GET, 2007 WL 9705914, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 23,
2007) (dismissal of prior suit on grounds of judicial immunity
“constitutes a final judgment on the merits between identical
parties based on the same causes of action”). 	Accordingly, the
final judgment on the merits in Case 21-238 precludes the claims
against Judge Greenhalgh asserted here, and the District Judge
should dismiss those claims.
Filing Restriction Warning
This is the fifth lawsuit Mrs. Amatucci has filed
concerning the August 2018 incident at the Town dump. 	As
discussed above, Case 19-531 and Case 21-238 have been dismissed
on their merits, and final judgment has entered in those cases.
Under the doctrine of claim preclusion/res judicata, claims
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 6 of 8

7
which were, or could have been, asserted in those earlier cases
are barred. 	Additionally, a case Mrs. Amatucci previously filed
in this Court, Case 20-449, was dismissed on the grounds of res
judicata, as Case 20-449 asserted claims which were, or could
have been asserted in Case 19-531 against defendants named or in
privity with the defendants to Case 19-531. 	See Aug. 11, 2021
Order, Case 20-449 (ECF No. 21) (approving Aug. 2, 2021 R&R (ECF
No. 18)).
For these reasons, it should be clear to Mrs. Amatucci that
she cannot obtain relief in this court on the claims asserted in
this case, or on any claims arising out of the August 2018
incident at the Town dump, or the related investigation and
state court criminal proceedings, asserted against any involved
Town employee, law enforcement officer, prosecutor, state court
judge, or state court personnel. 	Accordingly, should Mrs.
Amatucci attempt again to file any new action in this Court
concerning these matters, the Court may, at that time, enjoin
Mrs. Amatucci from filing any new action in this Court arising
from the August 2018 incident at the Town dump.5
5 Mrs. Amatucci is already subject to two filing
restrictions which prevent her from filing certain cases in this
Court. 	See Amatucci v. Hamilton, No. 13-cv-87-SM (D.N.H.), July
29, 2013 Order (ECF No. 8) (enjoining Mrs. Amatucci from
commencing any action arising from her 2003 arrest without prior
approval from a judge of this Court); Amatucci v. Chase, No. 17-
cv-237-JL (D.N.H.), Apr. 11, 2018 Order (ECF No. 100) (approving
Feb. 6, 2018 R&R (ECF No. 77) and enjoining Mrs. Amatucci from
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 7 of 8

8
Conclusion
As explained herein, all of the elements of res judicata
are met as to each of Mrs. Amatucci’s claims in this action.
Accordingly, 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 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
February 28, 2022
cc: 	Josephine Amatucci, pro se
commencing any action arising out of May 7, 2014 events and the
prosecution ensuing therefrom without prior approval from a
judge of this Court).
Case 1:21-cv-01081-LM Document 7 Filed 02/28/22 Page 8 of 8