Beaulieu v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Beaulieu
v. Civil No. 15-cv-012-JD
N.H. Department of
Corrections, et al.
O R D E R
Christopher Beaulieu, who is a New Hampshire State Prison
inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. After preliminary review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and LR 4.3(d)(1), the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation on May 4, 2015, that
recommended dismissal of all claims except the claim alleging
excessive force on March 7, 2012. Beaulieu filed two objections
to the report and recommendation in which he argued that his
claim alleging that the defendants failed to protect him from
sexual assault should not be dismissed.
Screening under § 1915A identifies cognizable claims or
dismisses the complaint or claims in the complaint that do not
state a claim on which relief may be granted. § 1915A(b). When
a party files a timely objection to a report and recommendation,
the court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 18 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 5

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Beaulieu objects to
that part of the report and recommendation which recommended
dismissal of his claim that prison officials failed to protect
him from being raped by other inmates.
Corrections officials may be liable under the Eighth
Amendment if they fail to provide reasonable measures to protect
inmates from violence by other inmates. Lakin v. Barnhart, 758
F.3d 66, 70 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994)). To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim that a
prison official failed to protect him from attack, the plaintiff
must show that he is “‘incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm’” and the official “acted, or
failed to act, with ‘deliberate indifference to inmate health or
safety.’” Lakin, 758 F.3d at 70 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at
834). Deliberate indifference occurs when the official is
subjectively aware of the risk, when facts known to the official
show or suggest a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate,
and the official draws the inference, but the official does not
take reasonable action to protect the inmate. Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 842-44.
Rape of an inmate by another inmate constitutes serious harm
for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 833. Taking the
facts alleged in his complaint along with those alleged in his
objections in the light most favorable to him, Beaulieu alleges
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 18 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 5

that he was raped at the prison under the following
circumstances. See, e.g., Simpson v. Superintendent, Merrimack
County Dep’t of Corrs., 2014 DNH 170, 2014 WL 1404568, at *1
(D.N.H. Apr. 10, 2014) (standard of review under § 1915A).
Beaulieu states that he was raped by another inmate in
December of 2011 and reported the rape in January of 2012. He
recanted the rape report, however, when the perpetrator
threatened him and his family.
In April of 2014, Beaulieu asked to leave a group session
because he was unable to focus due to ongoing sexual assaults.1
When the social worker, Barbara T. Slayton, spoke to Beaulieu
privately, he reported the assaults to her. Four days later,
Beaulieu was assigned to “ATC” by Slayton and Captain Paul Cascio
and was locked into his cell there. The same day, inmate M.R.,
the perpetrator, arrived and was locked into his cell. Because
of Beaulieu’s sexual assault report, M.R. should not have been
housed with Beaulieu.
Although Beaulieu was locked into his cell, M.R. was not.
Beaulieu was pressured into recanting the rape report and then
was no longer locked into his cell. On April 30, 2014, M.R.
again sexually assaulted Beaulieu. When that assault occurred,
the staff was watching a movie in the dayroom.
1The sexual assaults apparently were being committed by
inmate M.R. who is named in the objection (document no. 17).
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 18 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 5

Beaulieu alleges that Barbara Slayton, Kevin Stevenson, and
Paul Cascio knew that he had been raped and knew that he was at
risk of being raped, but did not separate him from the inmate
perpetrator or perpetrators. As a result, he alleges, he was
raped again.
The report and recommendation is adopted as to the excessive
force claim, which was served; and the claims of false
disciplinary reports and denials of due process, and claims of
inadequate medical care, which are dismissed. The report and
recommendation is not adopted as to the recommendation that the
endangerment claim arising from rape be dismissed. That claim
under the Eighth Amendment for the rape on April 30, 2014, is
stated against Barbara T. Slayton, Kevin Stevenson, and Paul
Cascio.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s claims are
dismissed except a claim alleging that he was subjected to
excessive force on March 7, 2012, and a claim that certain prison
officials failed to protect him from being raped which resulted
in a rape on April 30, 2014. The complaint, along with the two
objections which are deemed to be amendments of the complaint
(documents 16 and 17), shall be served on Craig Orlando,
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 18 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 5

Christopher Ziemba, Barbara T. Slayton, Kevin Stevenson, and Paul
Cascio. All other claims and defendants are dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 16, 2015
cc: Christopher R. Beaulieu, pro se
Laura E. B. Lombardi, Esq.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 18 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 5