United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff, Josephine Amatucci, has filed a complaint (Doc.
No. 1), and three addenda to the complaint (Doc. Nos. 3-5),
against the Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, Police Department
(“WPD”) and the WPD Prosecutor, Timothy Morgan,
seeking damages and an order from this court reversing her
conviction in a state court criminal proceeding. The
pleadings are before the court for preliminary review. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2).
magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of complaints
filed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge may recommend
to the district judge that one or more claims be dismissed
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. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). In conducting its
preliminary review, the court construes pro se complaints
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam). The complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief.'” See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
7, 2014, Amatucci was arrested for disobeying a police
officer. A criminal complaint was subsequently brought
against Amatucci, and she was tried and convicted on that
charge. Amatucci alleges that Morgan, the prosecutor in that
criminal case, replaced a CD/DVD that contained exculpatory
evidence, with a different CD/DVD. As a result, Amatucci
states that she was denied access to exculpatory evidence
that, she asserts, would have resulted in her acquittal if it
had been admitted at trial. Amatucci also alleges that Morgan
conspired with both the WPD and the trial court judge to
violate Amatucci's rights, and to prosecute her, knowing
that her arrest was unlawful.
asserts the following claims in this action:
1. Morgan concealed and suppressed exculpatory information
from Amatucci and from the court, in violation of
Amatucci's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
2. Morgan knowingly utilized false evidence to convict
Amatucci by substituting a CD/DVD that contained exculpatory
evidence, with a different CD/DVD, and placed the substitute
CD/DVD in evidence at trial, in violation of Amatucci's
Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
3. Morgan engaged in a malicious prosecution against
Amatucci, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments and state law.
4. Morgan and the WPD conspired to subject Amatucci to a
malicious prosecution, in violation of Amatucci's
Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial and Fourth
Amendment right not to be arrested without a warrant.
5. Morgan and the state court judge conspired subject
Amatucci to a malicious prosecution, in violation of
Amatucci's Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial and
Fourth Amendment right not to be arrested without a warrant.
6. Morgan committed the crimes of fraud, perjury, and
tampering with public records, by falsifying ...