Stow v. McGrath

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE.

         Before the court in this matter are the following motions and other documents, filed by plaintiff Weston J. Stow, seeking to amend his complaint to add claims and defendants to this action:

• “Motion to Amend the Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)” (Doc. No. 95), “Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's 1-11-18 Mailed [Motion to Amend the Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)]” (Doc. No. 97), and “Supplemental Complaint to the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 95)” (Doc. No. 108);

• “Motion to Add the Within as an Addendum to the 1-11-18 Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 98);

• “Motion to Add the Within Point of Law as an Addendum to Plaintiff's 1-16-2018 Memorandum of Law” (Doc. No. 106);

• “Motion to Amend Supplement the 1-11-2018 Amended Complaint [Motion to Amend the Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)]” (Doc. No. 107);

• “Motion to Supplement the 01-11-18 Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 15(a)(2); 15(c); 15(d)” (Doc. No. 118); and

• “Motion for Court to Order Defendants to Answer All Amended and Supplemental Complaints” (Doc. No. 119).

         In this Report and Recommendation, the court refers to these documents, collectively, as Stow's “motions to amend.”

         Defendants have objected to the above-listed filings, see Doc. Nos. 104, 109, and Stow, in response to the objections, has filed “Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Omnibus Objection to Plaintiff's Multiple Motions Seeking to Supplement the Motion to Amend the Operative Complaint” (Doc. No. 121) and “Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)” (Doc. No. 122).

         Background

         I. Claims Presently in this Action

In this case, the court has previously allowed the following claims to proceed against the defendants named in each claim^[1]:

1. Defendants Robert McGrath, Leo Lirette, and Edward Hardy, acting individually and in conspiracy with one another, caused Stow to be transferred from the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) to the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility (“NCF”) on March 30, 2016, in retaliation for Stow's administrative complaints about medication refill procedures and inadequate ventilation on his housing unit, causing Stow to lose his NHSP kitchen job, to have his pay decreased, and subjecting Stow to adverse conditions of confinement, embarrassment, and a loss of dignity, when other inmates who had made similar administrative complaints were not transferred to NCF and did not lose their prison jobs, in violation of:

a. Stow's First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, rendering those defendants liable for damages and ...