Beltran v. NH Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Beltran
v. Civil No. 23-cv-223-JL-AJ
New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Christopher Beltran, who is incarcerated at the New
Hampshire State Prison filed a motion (Doc. No. 9) asking the court to direct the New
Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to return his legal materials which, he
alleges, were stolen from him by unidentified DOC officials. The court construes the
motion to seek preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. As such, the motion is before the undersigned magistrate judge for
consideration and a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) as to disposition.
To succeed in a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party
“must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips is
his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The elements of likelihood of success on the
merits and irreparable harm weigh heavily in the analysis, and are assessed in tandem.
See id. The burden of proof on all four preliminary injunction factors lays with the
movant. See Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2006).
Additionally, the movant must “‘establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the
party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.’” Polansky v. Wrenn, No. 12-
Case 1:23-cv-00223-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
cv-105-PB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38617, at *15, 2013 WL 1165158, at *5 (D.N.H. Feb.
22, 2013) (citation omitted), R&R adopted sub nom., Polansky v. NH Dep’t of Corr., No.
12-cv-105-PB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38608, 2013 WL 1155429 (D.N.H. Mar. 19, 2013).
If the request for injunctive relief is not related to the claims asserted in an action, the
court does not have the authority to issue the requested injunction. See Pac. Radiation
Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).
Mr. Beltran’s motion for injunctive relief asserts that he is being denied legal
materials he needs to litigate this case. A claim that a prisoner is being denied the
means necessary to litigate a civil action challenging the conditions of his confinement
arises under the First Amendment right to access the courts. Mr. Beltran has not
asserted a claim in his complaint this action alleging that he has been denied access to
the courts. Mr. Beltran has therefore failed to establish the requisite connection
between the underlying claims in this case and the injunctive relief requested in the
instant motion for injunctive relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny Mr. Beltran’s motion
(Doc. No. 9) seeking preliminary injunctive relief, without prejudice to his ability to seek
such relief in this case if he amends his complaint to add a cognizable access to the
courts claim, or in a separate action asserting such a claim. Any objections to this R&R
must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The fourteen-day 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-
Case 1:23-cv-00223-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 6, 2026
cc: Christopher M. Beltran, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00223-JL-AJ Document 13 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 3