1Plaintiff has stated that his real name is Bryan Bernard

and Joseph Vaillancourt and Joe Vaillancourt are aliases. 

Accordingly, I will refer to plaintiff by his real name.

2Bernard originally filed a complaint (document no. 1) on

November 21, 2006. Since that time, Bernard has filed close to

one hundred additional pleadings, documents, and letters in this

matter. After carefully reviewing the entire case file, I have

determined that eight additional filings constitute addenda to

the complaint in this case (document nos. 49, 54, 55, 67, 69, 89

& 101). These nine documents, in the aggregate, will be

considered to be the complaint in this matter.

3After reviewing the complaint in its entirety (document

nos. 1, 49, 54, 55, 67, 69, 89 & 101), I find that Bernard has

named the following defendants to this action: the DOC, former

New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) Warden Bruce Cattell, Greg

Crompton, Kimberly Lacasse, physical therapist Bernice Campbell,

Warden Larry Blaisdell, former DOC Commissioner William Wrenn,

Judy Baker, ARNP, Dr. Freedman, Dr. Fellows, Brett Mooney, ARNP,

Sgt. Washburn, Corrections Officer (“CO”) Todd Ash, Sgt. Smith,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bryan Bernard

a.k.a. Joseph Vaillancourt

v. Civil No. 06-cv-438-JD

New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Bryan Bernard1 brings this complaint2 against numerous

unnamed defendants and a number of individually named employees

of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”).3 Bernard

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 107 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 6
Unit Manager (“UM”) Tim Moquin, Lt. Daniel Shaw, UM Kolvacs, CO

Poole, Sgt. Carroll, CO Hopwood, Mjr. Cunningham, Mjr. Cox, Capt.

Eldridge, UM Dan Millis, Gail McKenna, RN, Denise Rancourt, RN,

Sgt. Wilson, Sgt. Severe, Sgt. Hooter, Sgt. Massey, Cpl.

Gosselin, Sgt. Hammer, CO Norton, CO Lemieux, Jr., CO Burdick,

Counselor Dolan, CO Horan, John Vinson, CO Pumelor, Donna Timult,

RN, John Eckert, Capt. Font, UM Thyng, CO Textiera, Dr. Celia

Englander, Cpl. Morin, all of the employees and agents of the

State of New Hampshire, all of the members of the Governor’s

Disability Rights Commission, New Hampshire Attorney General

Kelly Ayotte, and all of the employees of the Coos County

Attorney’s Office. Each defendant is sued in their individual

and official capacities.

2

has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et

seq. Bernard alleges that the defendants have violated a number

of Bernard’s constitutional rights during his incarceration at

the DOC. The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states any claim upon

which relief might be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; United

States District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local

Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). As fully discussed in my Report and

Recommendation, issued simultaneously with this Order, I direct

that the inadequate medical care and ADA claims be served against

defendants Englander, Timult, Mooney, and Campbell, and I

recommend dismissal of the remainder of claims and defendants

from this action.

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 107 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 6
4Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supporting Documents

(document no. 85) was accepted as an addenda to the complaint and

was therefore implicitly granted. 

5The DOC has filed an objection to this Motion (document no.

61). Bernard has filed a reply to the objection (document no.

70), a motion to dismiss the objection (document no. 74), and a

final reply to the objection (document no. 82).

6The DOC has filed an objection to this motion (document no.

60). Bernard has filed a reply to the objection (document no.

70), a motion to dismiss the objection (document no. 74), and a

final reply to the objection (document no. 82).

3

Pending Motions

Bernard has filed numerous documents in this case, many of

which are motions. Some of the motions have been ruled upon,

some have been considered as part of the complaint4, and others

remain pending. For the sake of clarity, I identify the

following motions as still pending as of this date:

- Motion for Preliminary Injunction (document no. 38)5

- Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (document no. 

40)6

- Motion to Compel Catholic Medical Center to Release 

 Specific Records (document no. 56)

- Motion to Disqualify and Dismiss Defendants Counsel 

 (document no. 68)

- Objection to Notice of Attorney General Appearance 

(document no. 73)

- Motion to Request Issuance of Subpoenas (document no. 

92)

- Motion for Private Neuro-Surgical Eval (document no. 

97)

- Motion for Default Judgment in Favor of Joe 

Vaillancourt, pro se (document no. 98)

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 107 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 6
4

- Motion to Order (Compel) Defendants’ Compliance 

(document no. 99)

 

It is not apparent from a review of the file which of the abovenumbered motions have been forwarded to counsel for the

defendants. To the extent that the defendants have received

copies of these motions, defendants have ten days from the date

of this Order to respond. If any of the motions on this list

have not been received by defendants, the defendants must notify

the plaintiff and the Court within ten days of the date of this

Order which motion or motions they have not received. The

plaintiff must then forward a copy of that motion to counsel for

the defendants within ten days of receiving that notice. 

Plaintiff must also notify the Court that the motion was served

on defendants’ counsel. Defendants will have ten days from the

date of receipt of any such motion to respond.

Conclusion

As I find that plaintiff has stated claims for inadequate

medical care and violations of the ADA upon which relief may be

granted, I order the complaint (document nos. 1, 49, 54, 55, 67,

69, 89 & 101) be served on Defendants Englander, Mooney, Timult,

and Campbell. The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New

Hampshire Office of the Attorney General (AG), as provided in the

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 107 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 6
5

Agreement On Acceptance Of Service, copies of this order, the

Report and Recommendation, and the complaint (document nos. 1,

49, 54, 55, 67, 69, 89 & 101). 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

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).

 

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 107 Filed 03/29/07 Page 5 of 6
6

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: March 29, 2007

cc: Bryan Bernard, a.k.a. Joseph Vaillancourt, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 107 Filed 03/29/07 Page 6 of 6