UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Knowles

v. Civil No. 05-cv-363-PB

Stephen Curry, Commissioner,

New Hampshire Department of Corrections

O R D E R

William Knowles has filed a motion to amend his complaint

(document no. 21). The defendant objects (document no. 22). The

matter was referred to me by the District Judge for a ruling on

this matter. For the reasons explained herein, I grant the

motion and allow the complaint to be amended as requested.

Knowles’ complaint currently pending before the Court

(document no. 1) alleges that certain defendants at the New

Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) have violated Knowles’ right to

receive adequate medical care for his serious medical needs in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Knowles suffers from

glaucoma, a serious eye condition. Knowles alleges that as a

result of the defendants’ deliberate failure to provide him with

needed medical attention and treatment, his condition needlessly

worsened and he is now blind in one eye. Specifically, Knowles

attributes the fact that despite being aware of his need for the

attention of a specialist, the defendants did not arrange for him

Case 1:05-cv-00363-JL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 6
1Knowles states that Snow and Frazzina are currently working

for the New Hampshire Department of Corrections in its Lake

Region Facility.

2

to see a specialist for more than a year after the need was made

evident to them. 

I directed that defendants Curry, Wrenn and McLeod be served

with Knowles’ initial complaint. Knowles now seeks to add Sgt.

Matthew Snow, Transportation Department, New Hampshire State

Prison - Concord, Nurse Coordinator Anna Frazzina, Medical

Department, New Hampshire State Prison - Concord,1 Nurse

Coordinator, Sgt. Masse, Transportation Department, Northern New

Hampshire Correctional Facility (“NCF”), and Nurse Coordinator

Denise Rancourt, Medical Department, NCF. 

As grounds to add these individuals as defendants to this

action, Knowles relies on the New Hampshire Department of

Corrections’ (“DOC”) Policy and Procedure Directive (“PPD”)

6.15(III) which states:

It is the policy of the Department of Corrections 

that arrangements will be made for consultations 

with medical specialists when necessary, or 

hospitalization will be arranged for medical issues 

when the health care needs of the inmate are beyond 

 the facilities’ resources as determined by the 

health authority. Transportation will be provided 

under the appropriate security provisions. 

Case 1:05-cv-00363-JL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 6
2In reviewing this motion and Knowles proposed amended

complaint, I apply the same standard of review fully explained in

my April 12, 2006 Report and Recommendation in this matter

(document no. 10).

3

PPD 6.15(IV)(A) goes on to identify the Coordinator of the DOC

facility’s health unit and the transportation team as the parties

responsible for setting and carrying out medical appointments

with health care providers outside of the DOC facility. I

construe Knowles’ motion to allege that the named transportation

and health coordinating officials at NCF and at NHSP were aware

of and failed to fulfill their responsibility to arrange for and

transport Knowles to an appointment with an opthamologist.2

The defendants’ objection relies on Knowles’ lack of

specificity as to the actions taken on the part of the

individuals he seeks to add to this action. While Knowles may

ultimately have to prove that these individuals deliberately

abdicated a responsibility to Knowles to provide him treatment

for a serious medical condition to succeed on the merits of this

claim, Knowles’ complaint, construed liberally, alleges that

Snow, Frazzina, Masse, and Rancourt violated his Eighth Amendment

right to adequate medical care by failing to fulfill their

responsibilities to provide Knowles an appointment with an

opthamologist when they were aware that such medical care was

Case 1:05-cv-00363-JL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 6
4

necessary. Thus, Knowles alleges clearly that the omission or

failure to act on the part of the proposed defendants gives rise

to an action against the proposed defendants.

If the State holds an individual in custody or otherwise

assumes responsibility for that person’s welfare, a “special

relationship” may be created between the State and the individual

in custody such that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a duty on

the State to assume responsibility for the individual’s personal

safety and well-being. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of

Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 200 (1989); Monahan v. Dorchester

Counseling Ctr., 961 F.2d 987, 991 (1st Cir. 1992); Germany v.

Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 1989). As a direct result of his

custodial status, Knowles was not able to insure his own wellbeing, as he was unable to arrange for his own opthamology

appointment. Knowles has alleged that the harm he has suffered

to his eyes and vision is the direct result of the requested

defendants’ dereliction of their duty, under their “special

relationship” with him, to provide him adequate medical care. 

Knowles has thus alleged sufficient facts to add these

individuals as defendants to this action. Accordingly, I grant 

Case 1:05-cv-00363-JL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 4 of 6
3While Knowles’ motion does not strictly comport with the

requirements of United States District Court for the District of

New Hampshire Local Rule 15.1, I will accept his motion as

submitted and the original complaint, motion to amend, and

amended complaint shall be considered to be the complaint in this

matter.

5

Knowles’ motion to amend.3 The motion to amend, amended

complaint, objection to motion to amend the Report and

Recommendation and Order I issued on April 12, 2006, and this

Order (document nos. 1, 10, 11, 14, 21, and 22), are to be served

on all of the defendants to the action, those named in the

original complaint and those added in the plaintiff’s instant

motion: Curry, Wrenn, McLeod, Snow, Frazzina, Masse and Rancourt.

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, the

Report and Recommendation and the documents enumerated above. 

See LR 4.3(d)(2)(C). Within thirty days from receipt of these

materials, the AG will submit to the court an Acceptance of

Service notice specifying those of the additional 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. 

Case 1:05-cv-00363-JL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 5 of 6
6

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 added 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

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

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 3, 2006

cc: William J. Knowles, pro se

 Mary E. Maloney, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00363-JL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 6 of 6