1The NHDOC and following NHDOC employees are named as

defendants: Stephen J. Curry, Commissioner; John Vinson, Legal

Counsel; and Irene McCormack, Sex Offender Program Coordinator;

Also named as a defendant is John Eckert, Secretary to the New

Hampshire Adult Parole Board (“Parole Board”). 

The following NCF employees are named as defendants: Larry

Blaisdell, Acting Warden; Tina Withington, Head of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. Civil No. 05-cv-367-SM

New Hampshire Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Harvey Pratt has filed a complaint and

amendment thereto, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

defendants have violated his rights under the First, Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and New

Hampshire law (document nos. 1 and 9). He seeks injunctive,

declaratory and monetary relief under Section 1983 and attorneys

fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Named as defendants are numerous

employees and officers of the New Hampshire Department of

Corrections (“NHDOC”), New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) and

the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility (“NCF”).1 Also

Case 1:05-cv-00367-SM Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 5
Classifications; Dan Millis, Unit Manager; Elmer Van Hoesen,

Counselor; and Sergeant Hill, Corrections Officer. 

The following NHSP employees are named as defendants: Bruce

Cattell, Warden; Greg Crompton, Deputy Warden; Kim Lacasse, Head

of Classifications; Craig Thyng, Unit Manager; Jeff Shanahan,

Counselor. The following NHSP corrections officers are also

named as defendants: Major Cunningham; Major Dan Shaw; Lieutenant

Thibeault; Lieutenant Daniel R. Toriz; Sergeant Blake; Sergeant

Desmond; Sergeant Anthony Kingsbury; Sergeant J.L.; Sergeant

Morin; P.N. Chessman; K. Dennis; J. Dunnack; Gardiner; K.

Howlett; and Pelletier.

2

named as defendants are three physicians allegedly acting as

agents or servants of the NHDOC: Dr. James K. Wolcott of Concord

Hospital; Steven V. Manzi of Concord Hospital; and Stanley W.

Whitaker of Androscoggin Hospital. 

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons stated in the report and

recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, I find that Pratt

has alleged the following claims: (1) Fourteenth Amendment due

process claims, arising from his disciplinary proceedings,

against Curry, Vinson, Cattell, Cunningham, Gardiner, Dunnack,

Kingsbury, Black, Toriz, Chessman, Denis, Desmond, Howlett,

Morin, Shaw, J.L. and Thibeault; (2) First and Fourteenth

Case 1:05-cv-00367-SM Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 5
3

Amendment retaliation claims against Curry, Vinson, Cattell,

Cunningham, Gardiner, Dunnack, Kingsbury, Black, Toriz, Chessman,

Denis, Desmond, Howlett, Morin, Shaw, J.L. and Thibeault; (3)

Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, arising from his

classification as a “sex offender,” against Curry, Wrenn, Vinson,

Cattell, Blaisdell, Eckert, McCormack, Crompton, Lacasse,

Shanahan, Thyng, Van Hoesen, Millis, Withington and Howlett; (4)

Eighth Amendment denial of adequate medical care claims against

Eppolito, Baker, Crompton and McLeod; (5) Fourteenth Amendment

right to privacy claims, arising from the disclosure or

dissemination of confidential medical information, against Baker

and Eppolito; and (6) supervisory liability claims against Curry,

Vinson, Blaisdell, Cattell and Crompton. I further recommend

that this Court exercise jurisdiction over Pratt’s related

supplemental state law claims. I recommend dismissal of all

remaining claims.

As I find that plaintiff has stated a claim upon which

relief may be granted, I order the complaint served on the

defendants. The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New

Hampshire Office of the Attorney General (AG), as provided in the

Agreement On Acceptance Of Service, copies of this order and the

complaint (document nos. 1 and 9). See LR 4.3(d)(2)(C). Within

Case 1:05-cv-00367-SM Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 5
4

thirty days from receipt of these materials, the AG will submit

to the court an Acceptance of Service notice specifying those

defendants who have authorized the AG’s office to receive service

on their behalf. When the Acceptance of Service is filed,

service will be deemed made on the last day of the thirty-day

period. 

As to those defendants who do not authorize the AG’s office

to receive service on their behalf or whom the AG declines to

represent, the AG shall, within thirty days from receipt of the

aforementioned materials, provide a separate list of the last

known addresses of such defendants. The Clerk’s office is

instructed to complete service on these individuals by sending to

them, by certified mail, return receipt requested, copies of

these same documents. 

The defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within thirty days of acceptance of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

Case 1:05-cv-00367-SM Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 5
5

their attorneys, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 31, 2006

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00367-SM Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 5 of 5