Kayla M. Pless and Jeremiah J. Pless Jr. v. Emma Paciulli

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KAYLA M. PLESS JEREMIAH J. PLESS JR. v. Civil No. 25-cv-00454-JL-TSM EMMA PACIULLI REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Self-represented Plaintiffs Kayla Pless and Jeremiah Pless Jr. filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) asserting that Emma Paciulli (who is identified in the Complaint both as a “U.S. Probation Officer” and a probation officer with the New Hampshire Department of Corrections) violated their rights under the United States Constitution. The Complaint is before the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), and LR 4.3(d).

JEREMIAH PLESS On March 19, 2026, the court issued an Order (Doc. No. 4) taking preliminary review under advisement and directing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, or a copy of the current Complaint, signed by Mr. Pless, or by a lawyer appearing on one or both of their behalf, on or before April 19, 2026, as only Mrs. Pless signed the Complaint. The Order further directed that Mr. Pless file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by April 19, 2026 unless the filing fee was paid by that date. The Plaintiffs failed to submit a Complaint signed by Mr. Pless or an attorney, or an application for Mr. Pless to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss the claims in this action, to the extent they are asserted on behalf of Mr. Pless, and dismiss Mr. Pless from this action, without prejudice.

KAYLA PRESS The Complaint, signed by Mrs. Pless, asserts that Officer Paciulli “engaged in repeated misconduct” and “provided false statements” in Mr. Pless’s supervision record, and “made inappropriate comments about [Mr. Pless’s] physical appearance” which “caused unnecessary conflict” between the Plesses, and “created a hostile and retaliatory supervision environment” for Mr. Pless. Doc. No. 1, at 3. All of these assertions allege violations of Mr. Pless’s rights.

To the extent Mrs. Pless seeks relief on her own behalf for the “unnecessary conflict” between her and Mr. Pless, alleged to have resulted from Officer Paciulli’s comments to Mr. Pless about his appearance, such allegations fail to demonstrate that Officer Paciulli violated her rights under the United States Constitution or any other provision of law. Accordingly, Mrs. Pless failed to state any claim upon which relief might be granted, and the district judge should dismiss Mrs. Pless’s claims and deny Mrs. Pless’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) in its entirety and deny Mrs. Pless’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). Upon the district judge’s approval of this Report and Recommendation, the Clerk’s office should enter judgment and close this case.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).

Talesha L. Saint-Marc United States Magistrate Judge April 27, 2026 ce: Kayla Pless, pro se Jeremiah Pless, pro se