UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Todd M. Horstkotte

v. Civil No. 08-cv-61-JL

William Wrenn, Commissioner

N.H. Dept. of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Todd M. Horstkotte is an inmate at the New

Hampshire State Prison who brought this civil rights action to

complain about the adequacy of the medical care he is receiving

for his hepatitis C virus. Plaintiff has requested preliminary

injunctive relief to address the alleged lack of medical care and

various other claims, see Document nos. 1, 34 and 42, which are

currently pending before the court. In addition to the requested

injunctive relief, plaintiff has filed several motions, some of

which are relevant to the preliminary injunction requests, some

of which assert new claims, and some of which are redundant. The

record has become cluttered and confusing. In an effort to

clarify the current status of the case and clean up the docket,

the disposition of these several motions is set forth below. 

Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL Document 53 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 5
2

A. Resolved motions -while the following motions have 

previously been ruled on by endorsed order, for

clarity’s sake the rulings are repeated here:

1. Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement (document no. 11) - granted

per endorsed order on June 5, 2008.

2. Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement Answer to Defs.’ Obj.

to Injunction (document no. 17) - stricken per

endorsed order dated June 25, 2008.

3. Defs.’ Am. Mot. to Strike Mot. for Misc. Relief

(document no. 19) - granted per endorsed order

dated June 25, 2008 striking document no. 17.

4. Defs.’ Emergency Request for Extenstion of Time to

Answer Plaintiff’s Compl. (document no. 46) - granted

per endorsed order on July 25, 2008.

B. Pending motions - the following motions are disposed

of as follows:

1. Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement Compl. (document no. 23) - 

this is actually the Supplement to the Complaint,

which is allowed per the June 5, 2008, order granting

plaintiff’s motion to supplement (document no. 11),

see A.1 above. Document no. 23 together with document

no. 1 constitute the Complaint in this action.

2. Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement Parole Results

(document no. 28) - this is another request to

supplement the complaint and does not discuss the 

results of the parole hearing but instead asserts 

additional allegations about the inadequate medical

care plaintiff is receiving at the NHSP and complaints

about the parole hearing. Requests to amend a

complaint more than once require the consent of

the opposing party or leave from the court, neither

of which plaintiff sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Moreover, even as a pro se litigant, 

plaintiff is not entitled to repeated opportunities to

Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL Document 53 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 5
3

supplement his complaint without properly exhausting

his claims as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) or

without satisfying the notice and justification 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Denied.

3. Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement the Record with Audio

Recording of Parole Hearing (document no. 29) -

Defendants submitted a typed transcript of the parole

hearing (see document no. 30), rendering the audio

tape redundant. Denied as moot. 

4. Pl.’s Mot. to Waive Copy fee of 122 page pleading

(document no. 32) - This motion requests copies of 

document no. 11, which have been made and are part of 

the record. Denied as moot.

5. Pl.’s Emergency Mot. for Inj. Relief (document no. 34) -

Plaintiff has moved to dismiss this motion (see

document no. 43). Denied as moot.

6. Pl.’s Obj. and Mot. to Strike Defs.’ Response to

Court Order dated May 27, 2008 regarding results

of plaintiff’s parole hearing (document no. 36) -

Plaintiff’s request to strike the defendants’ filing

informing the court of the results of plaintiff’s 

June 19, 2008 parole hearing (document no. 30) is 

denied, as the document was submitted pursuant to this 

court’s order. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of 

document no. 30 is granted. Defendants are ordered to 

provide plaintiff with hard copies of all documents

filed in this action, on the date they are filed.

Granted in part; denied in part.

7. Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement and Mot. for Inj. Relief

(document no. 42) - Plaintiff’s request to supplement

the complaint to assert new claims about the NHSP

infirmary does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)

or (d) and is, therefore, denied. Plaintiff’s request

for injunctive relief will be addressed in a Report

and Recommendation regarding the disposition of the

injunctive relief sought. Denied in part.

Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL Document 53 Filed 07/29/08 Page 3 of 5
4

8. Pl.’s Mot. to Dismiss (document no. 43) - granted.

9. Defs.’ Mot. to Strike Pl.’ Response to Defs.’ Obj. to 

Mot. to Supplement (document no. 47) - Plaintiff’s 

response/reply (document no. 37) to Defendants’ Obj.

(document no. 33) is redundant, trying again to 

supplement the complaint and to add the tape of the

parole hearing to the record, which requests have 

previously been considered and denied (see B.3 and B.6

above). Granted.

10. Defs.’ Mot. to Strike Pl.’s Mot. to Supplement and

Mot. for Inj. Relief (document no. 48) - plaintiff’s 

Mot. to Supplement and Mot. for Inj. Relief (document 

no. 42), to the extent it seeks to supplement the 

complaint with new allegations, fails to comply with 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) or (d), or

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); to the extent plaintiff seeks 

injunctive relief based on those allegations, it will

be disposed of in the Report and Recommendation 

regarding the pending requests for preliminary 

injunctive relief. Granted in part; denied in part.

The parties are advised that the controlling pleading is the

Complaint and the first Supplement thereto (document nos. 1 and

23) only. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to answer 

the complaint, which was granted on July 25, 2008, asked for a

four week extension of time. That request is hereby granted, and

defendants shall file their answer by Wednesday, August 27, 2008.

Plaintiff is further advised that future filings must comply

with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United

States District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local

Rules (“LR”), in particular Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 15 governing

Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL Document 53 Filed 07/29/08 Page 4 of 5
5

the filing of motions and amending of the complaint, and LR 7.1

an 7.2 governing motions. While the court recognizes that

plaintiff is challenged by his pro se status, he is still

expected to know and comply with the rules of this court. See LR

4.3(b). Nonconforming motions shall be stricken and repeated

failure to abide by these rules may result in the imposition of

sanctions on the offending party. See LR 1.3 & 5.2; see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). Finally, plaintiff is reminded of the

exhaustion requirement set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), that

must be satisfied before complaints may be presented to this

court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 29, 2008 

cc: Todd M. Horstkotte, pro se

Deborah B. Weissbard, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL Document 53 Filed 07/29/08 Page 5 of 5