Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amatucci v. Morgan

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

October 13, 2016

Josephine Amatucci
v.
Prosecutor Timothy Morgan, and Wolfeboro Police Department

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pro se 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).

         Preliminary Review Standard

         The 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).

         Background

         On May 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.

         Claims Asserted

         Amatucci 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.