1DeAngelis also broadly alleges Sixth Amendment and state

law claims but fails to provided any predicate facts in support

of those claims. I therefore construe his complaint to allege

only claims under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis

v. Civil No. 06-cv-376-PB

New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Michael DeAngelis has filed an amended

complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations

under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments1 to the United

States Constitution (document nos. 1 and 9). During the course

of DeAngelis’ incarceration at the New Hampshire State Prison

(“NHSP”), defendants allegedly failed to protect him from attack

by other inmates, denied him adequate medical care, denied him

due process during a disciplinary hearing and retaliated against

him for filing administrative grievances.

Named as defendants are William Wrenn, Commissioner of the

New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“NHDOC”), the NHSP and

Case 1:06-cv-00376-JL Document 16 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2Named as defendants are the following NHSP employees: Bruce

Cattell, Warden; Larry Blaisdell, Acting Warden; Robert McLeod,

Medical Director; Donna Timulty, Medical Supervisor; nurses

Tammy, Brad, Fran, Michelle and Brett Mooney; Robert McGrath,

Counselor; Greg Crompton, Deputy Warden; Lucy Bilodeau Unit

Manager; and corrections officers Ross Cunningham, Morin,

Hickman, Marshall, O’Brien, Burrows, Hogan, S. Howland and

Carroll.

2

several NHSP employees.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 below, I

order DeAngelis to amend his complaint to clarify the denial of

due process claim stemming from his disciplinary hearing.

In paragraph 30 of the complaint, DeAngelis alleges that

Morin abridged his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by

denying him the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence

during a disciplinary hearing. The complaint is silent as to the

precise charges filed against DeAngelis and whether he was

subsequently sanctioned or subjected to punitive segregation as a

result of the disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, DeAngelis is

ordered to amend his complaint to clarify the factual

circumstances surrounding his disciplinary hearing, to explain

the nature and disposition of the charges filed against him, to

Case 1:06-cv-00376-JL Document 16 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 3
3

identify any sanctions or punishment imposed and to identify any

other ensuing harm. He is further ordered to explain how any

sanction or punishment imposed was so severe that it was not a

typical and reasonably foreseen part of his prison life. 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, DeAngelis is ordered to amend

his complaint to clarify the factual basis with regard to the

denial of due process claim stemming from his disciplinary

hearing. DeAngelis should file his amended complaint within

twenty (20) days. 

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 26, 2007

cc: Michael DeAngelis, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00376-JL Document 16 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 3