1The complaint alleges violations of the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4 (“RFRA”). In City

of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532-36 (1997), the Supreme

Court declared RFRA unconstitutional as it applied to the states

and their subdivisions. See also Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S.

709, 715 at n.2 (2005). Accordingly, I liberally construe the

complaint to allege violations under RLUIPA, which is the

successor statute to RFRA and which applies to the states. See

Cutter v. Wilkinson, 423 F.3d 579, 582 (6th Cir. 2005).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Albert Kuperman

v. Civil No. 06-cv-420-JD

New Hampshire Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Albert Kuperman has filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging that defendants have abridged his rights under

the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and New Hampshire law (document no. 1). He further

alleges that defendants have substantially burdened his religious

practices in violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

(“RLUIPA”)1 and have failed to accommodate his disability in

violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 5 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 4
2The NHDOC defendants include: Stephen J. Curry, former

Commissioner; William Wrenn, Commisssioner; and Robert MacLeod,

Administrative Chief, Forensic and Medical Services Division.

The NHSP and NCF defendants include: Bruce Cattell, NHSP

Warden; Greg Crompton, NHSP Deputy Warden; Larry Blaisdell, NCF

Acting Warden; Bernie Campbell, Physical Therapist; doctors

Ippolito and Englander; James Daly, Chaplin; employees Kimberly

Lacasse, Joy Leeks, Judy Baker and Barbara Mooney; and

correctional officers Danielle Charter and Washburn.

2

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.

Named as defendants are the New Hampshire Department of

Corrections (“NHDOC”) and numerous employees of the NHDOC, the

New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) and the Northern New

Hampshire Correctional Facility (“NCF”).2 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 Kuperman has stated the following claims

against Cattell and Blaisdell in their representative capacities:

(1) an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of adequate

medical care and a related state law negligence claim; (2) an

Eighth Amendment claim based on the failure to protect; (3) a

First Amendment claim based on the denial of free exercise of

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 5 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 4
3

religion; and (4) a RLUIPA claim based on the substantial burden

on religious practices. 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 be 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, the

report and recommendation and the complaint (document no. 1). 

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 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

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 5 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 4
4

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

these same documents. 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty 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: February 13, 2007

cc: Nancy Sue Tierney, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 5 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 4