Beers v. NH State Prison, Warden et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Timothy Beers
v. Civil No. 20-cv-968-LM
N.H. State Prison Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Plaintiff Timothy Beers filing entitled “Motion: Retaliation
Claim” (Doc. No. 137) which seeks to add a retaliation claim to this case against former
New Hampshire Department of Corrections Commissioner (“DOC”) Helen Hanks and
the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) Warden, and seeks preliminary injunctive
relief related to that putative claim. Defendant Alexis Isabelle filed an objection (Doc.
No. 139). Defendant Dr. Thomas Groblewski did not respond to Mr. Beers’s motion.
Background
Mr. Beers asserts that in March 2025, DOC officials transferred him from the
NHSP in Concord, New Hampshire to the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility
(“NCF”) in Berlin, New Hampshire. Mr. Beers alleges that the transfer was a retaliatory
adverse action because: the transfer caused him to lose his job at the NHSP, and
because the speed of the transfer did not allow Mr. Beers to ensure that all of his hobby
craft items were transferred with him, resulting in uncertainty as to whether they would
be transferred at all.
Further, Mr. Beers claims that “the move went wrong,” causing one of his hearing
aids to be “damaged by all the water put in the case that carried them as they were
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 164 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 5

2
floating in water for over 7 [hours].” Doc. No. 137, at 1. Mr. Beers states that because
Commissioner Hanks was present when he was being moved out of the NHSP, and that
she “talked with the [sergeants] who might have put the water in the storage of the
hearing aids,” she knew “about the retaliation move.” Id. at 2. Mr. Beers asserts that
after several weeks at NCF, his hearing aids had not been returned to him or replaced.
Request to Amend Complaint to Add Retaliation Claim
In his motion, Mr. Beers seeks to add a claim to this action alleging that his
transfer from NHSP to NCF, was an adverse act made in retaliation for his filing and
litigating this lawsuit. Assuming, without deciding, that a properly supported retaliation
claim for filing this lawsuit could be added to this case, as explained herein, the court
declines to do so here, as Mr. Beers has failed to state sufficient facts to support a
retaliation claim upon which relief might be granted.
To state a claim alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First
Amendment rights, Mr. Beers must allege facts showing that: (1) he “engaged in a
protected activity,” (2) prison officials took a non-de minimis adverse action against him,
and (3) that “there is a causal link between” his engagement in the protected activity
and the adverse act. See Hannon v. Beard, 645 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal
citations omitted). Here, Mr. Beers has failed to assert any facts at all to demonstrate
that there was any connection between his transfer to NCF and his filing and litigating of
this lawsuit. Mr. Beers has not explained how the decision to transfer him was a
reaction to this lawsuit or to any intention to punish him, cost him his job, or separate
him from some of his hobby craft items in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment
rights.
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 164 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 5

3
As to Mr. Beers’s allegation that his hearing aids were damaged by water in their
case, the only possible connection those allegations have to this case is that one of the
claims pending in this matter concerns Dr. Groblewski’s alleged failure to provide Mr.
Beers with working hearing aids in 2019 and 2020. However, that alone is insufficient to
allow the court to conclude that damage to one of Mr. Beers’s hearing aids was a
retaliatory act. Mr. Beers has not identified the person responsible for the damage to
his hearing aids, whether that person was aware of his lawsuit, or even whether the
damage to his hearing aids was intentional. Accordingly, Mr. Beers has failed to assert
sufficient facts to show that his transfer from NHSP to NCF was a non-de minimis
adverse act motivated by retaliatory intent, and the district judge should deny his
request to amend his complaint to add a retaliation claim to this case concerning his
2025 transfer from NHSP to NCF.
Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief
I. Legal Standard
In his motion, Mr. Beers asks this court to issue an injunction directing DOC
officials not to retaliate against him for filing this lawsuit. “A preliminary injunction is an
‘extraordinary’ equitable remedy that is ‘never awarded as of right.’” Starbucks Corp. v.
McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 345 (2024) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 24 (2008)).
[A] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing
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 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
McKinney, 602 U.S. at 346 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20, 22).
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 164 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Additionally, to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, “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-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., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38608, at *1, 2013 WL
1155429, at *1 (D.N.H. Mar. 19, 2013). If the request for injunctive relief is not related
to the claims asserted in the action in which the request is filed, the court does not have
the authority to issue the injunctive relief requested. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC
v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).
As discussed above, Mr. Beers has failed to state a retaliation claim upon which
relief might be granted, and therefore cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on
such a claim. And, the claims which are pending in this action are unrelated to the
preliminary injunctive relief sought. Further, even if Mr. Beers was able to state an
actionable retaliation claim in this matter, allegations that he lost money due to the loss
of a prison job, that he may be deprived of hobby craft items, and that his hearing aids
were damaged during the transfer, are insufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm, as
all of those alleged harms would be remediable by a damages award for a successful
retaliation claim. See Gonzalez v. Newrez LLC, Case No. 25-cv-105-JL-AJ, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 256201, at *5, 2025 WL 3490790, at *2 (D.N.H. Nov. 3, 2025) (“The general
rule in [the First] Circuit is that traditional economic damages can be remedied by
compensatory awards, and thus do not rise to the level of being irreparable.” (citation
omitted)), R&R approved, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 254029, at *1, 2025 WL 3486926, at
*1 (Dec. 3, 2025).
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 164 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Mr. Beers has failed to state sufficient facts to show that he is likely to succeed
on the merits of the putative retaliation claim underlying his request for a preliminary
injunction, or that he would suffer harm in the absence of the injunction requested.
Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to preliminary injunctive
relief, and the district judge should deny his request for such relief.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny Mr. Beers’s “Motion:
Retaliation Claim” (Doc. No. 137) seeking to add a retaliation claim to this action and
obtain preliminary injunctive relief related to that claim. 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 fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion.
Failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 24, 2026
cc: Timothy Beers, pro se
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
Duncan A. Edgar, Esq.
Megan Alydia Sigur, Esq.
Pamela L.P. Eaton, Esq.
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 164 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 5