Amatucci v. NH Supreme Court

2014 DNH 095

Opinion

Amatucci v. NH Supreme Court 13-CV-502-SM 5/2/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Josephine Amatucci, Plaintiff

v. Case No. 13-cv-502-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 095 The New Hampshire Supreme Court, Defendant

O R D E R

Josephine Amatucci is a very frequent filer in this

district. As a result, she has been placed under some

restrictions. Once again she seeks to file a complaint,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. She originally filed

this civil action against the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Her

complaint was subject to preliminary screening pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and, upon such screening, the court

concluded that it failed to state any viable claims.

Nevertheless, the court afforded her 30 days within which to file

an amended complaint either seeking relief that the court is

empowered to grant, or naming defendants who may be required to

pay damages.

In response, Amatucci filed a “Motion to Amend” (document

no. 5), in which she seeks to advance claims against the public

defender who represented her in 2003, when she was arrested for violating a restraining order. But, those are the very same

claims she already tried (unsuccessfully) to litigate in a prior

case before this court. See Amatucci v. Hamilton, 11-cv-512-SM.

Those claims were dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state

a viable cause of action. Ms. Amatucci cannot relitigate them in

a new proceeding, as they are now barred.

Moreover, this court previously enjoined Amatucci from

filing any more complaints in which she raised claims related to

her arrest in 2003 (this is the seventh time she has tried to

litigate such claims). See Amatucci v. Hamilton, 2013 WL 3897758

(D.N.H. July 29, 2013) (“Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby

dismissed with prejudice, and she is enjoined from commencing any

further actions in this court arising from her 2003 arrest

without prior approval from a judge of this court.”). She did

not seek such prior approval before filing her amended complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, neither Amatucci’s original

complaint nor her amended complaint asserts viable causes of

action, and so are dismissed. And, she would not be afforded

leave to file the amended complaint, in any event, because it

runs afoul of the restrictions previously imposed. The Clerk of

Court shall close the case.

2 SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

May 2, 2014

cc: Josephine Amatucci, pro se