Amatucci v. Wolfeboro Police Dep't, Doc. No. 212-2013-CV-178 (Carroll Super. Ct., March 6, 2014) (Garfunkel, J.)

Pages: 1 2




Josephine Amatucci


Wolfeboro Police Department

Docket No. 212-2013-CV-178


The court scheduled a hearing for March 4, 2014, on the plaintiff's petition. The plaintiff appeared representing herself and the defendant appeared with counsel. The history of this case is reflected in prior orders and will not be repeated here. However, the most recent history is relevant and will therefore be reviewed.

The underlying case involves the plaintiff's Right to Know Request pursuant to RSA Chap. 91-A for certain E-911 recorded calls. This matter was heard before the Hon. Steven M. Houran and Judge Houran issued an order dated December 3, 2013, denying the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration and on December 11, 2013, Judge Houran issued an order requiring the defendant to file its response, if any, by December 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, Judge Houran issued an Order for Recusal disqualifying himself from Ms. Amatucci's case. In that order, Judge Houran stated, in part:

Because I am disqualifying myself while a motion to reconsider my order on the merits is pending without ruling (and because I am now disqualified in this case, it will not be ruled upon) I am vacating my December 3, 2013 order, and notwithstanding the inevitable cost and inconvenience to the parties the merits of the case will need to be considered by a judge other than me.

[2] Thereafter, the court scheduled a further hearing for March 4, 2014. At that hearing, the plaintiff alleged that she was told Judge Nadeau would be presiding1 and that I was a "plant." I informed the plaintiff that I had been assigned to the Carroll County Superior Court by Judge Nadeau and that I was now sitting in this court.

Nevertheless, she continued to assert that I was a "plant," and that she would only proceed before Judge Nadeau. At that point, I informed the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed without prejudice. The defendant noted its objection and requested that the case be dismissed with prejudice. I denied that request.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice.


March 6, 2014    /s/   

David A. Garfunkel

Presiding Justice

1 I have been informed that the plaintiff did call the clerk's office and advised that she did not want either Judge Houran or Judge Fauver to sit on her case. She was informed that Judge Nadeau would be presiding on the date of her hearing, as Judge Nadeau was scheduled to sit in Carroll County at the time of that conversation. However, Judge Nadeau was not in Carroll County on March 4, 2014, I was.