UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Edmondson

v. Civil No. 05-cv-445-JD

NH Department of Corrections, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff’s latest preliminary injunction motion was

forwarded to me for a Report and Recommendation. His motion

asserts three bases for the injunction: (1) that defense counsel

witnesses at the hearings on February 23 and 24, 2006 to testify

falsely; (2) that retaliation against him is ongoing preventing

his readmission into the program; and (3) he has demonstrated his

readiness for readmission to the sexual offender program. 

1. False Testimony. 

There is little doubt that plaintiff expected a lot more

support than he got from witnesses at the hearings in February. 

At the hearing on September 14, 2006, he did elicit more

significant support but did not prove either prior perjury,

subordination of perjury or even intimidation of witnesses. 

Messrs. Redmond, Saunders and McAllister - all mental health

professionals - disagreed with the decision to terminate him in

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 61 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 3
2

the sexual offender program but did not testify differently in

content than previously. The testimony was more forceful this

time. 

There simply was no proof that defense counsel intimidated

witnesses into dishonest testimony. It is clear that the mental

health professionals disagreed with those who terminated

plaintiff from the sexual offender program. 

2. Ongoing Retaliation. 

Plaintiff clearly misperceived my prior effort to mediate a

proposed five month re-entry resolution as a court order. In

fact, he has moved up the re-entry list in accordance with prison

procedures - without any evidence of retaliation. The fact that

flaws in the program and its prior administration are evident and

that the program has therefore treated him unfairly is not the

same thing as retaliation for his prior testimony about the prior

unconstitutional religious-based content. There is no evidence

of retaliation and he did break the confidentiality rules. 

3. Demonstrated Readiness. 

The “completion” of his maintenance contract outside of the

program is not acceptable as part of the program. His cognitive

distortions in and out of the program raised concerns. Ms.

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 61 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Marsh, who took over as the director in May of 2006, has met with

plaintiff quarterly to update him but cannot give a definite date

for re-entry. While this judge believes plaintiff was not dealt

with in complete fairness by the prior sexual offender

administrators, the fact is he did violate “confidentiality”. 

That is a sufficient basis to terminate and the court will watch

how fairly his readmission happens. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate retaliation and his

motion should be denied. In addition to my “bench”

recommendation, I further recommend the motion be denied. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 19, 2006

cc: William Edmondson, pro se

 Mary E. Maloney, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 61 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 3