Gray v. Perkins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jeffrey M. Gray
v. 	Civil No. 14-cv-386-PB
John Perkins, New Hampshire State
Prison Librarian, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Gray, a New Hampshire State Prison
(“NHSP”) inmate, has filed a motion (Doc. No. 191)1 seeking
preliminary injunctive relief. 	The defendants object. 	See Doc.
No. 196. 	The motion has been referred to the undersigned
magistrate judge for proposed findings and recommendations as to
disposition. 	See Oct. 31, 2017 Order.
Background
Pending before the court in this action are five claims,
identified in the court’s September 20, 2016 Order (Doc. No.
148) as Claims 1-3, 5, and 8, alleging violations of Gray’s
First and Eighth Amendment rights. 	Those claims concern
specific events that are alleged to have occurred at the NHSP
1Gray’s motion for injunctive relief has been filed under
seal, as it contains discussion of Gray’s confidential medical
information. 	No confidential information has been included in
this Report and Recommendation, which need not be sealed.
Case 1:14-cv-00386-PB Document 223 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 3

2
and at the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility (“NCF”)
in 2013 and 2014.
Gray’s instant request for preliminary injunctive relief
arises out of claims that arose during and after February 2017.
Gray seeks an order from this court directing prison officials:
1) to return Gray to one of two housing units at the NHSP from
the NCF, where he was housed at the time he filed the instant
motion2; 2) to return medical supplies and medication seized from
Gray’s cell at NCF in October 2017; and 3) to return religious
and personal property seized from his cell at NCF in October
2017.
Discussion
Gray’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 191) seeks
relief connected to claims that are not pending against the
defendants in this case. 	“‘[A] party moving for a preliminary
injunction 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 WL
1165158, at *5, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38617, at *15 (D.N.H. Feb.
22, 2013) (citation omitted), R&R adopted, 2013 WL 1155429, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38608 (D.N.H. Mar. 19, 2013). 	Plaintiff’s
2Since filing his motion for injunctive relief, Gray has
been returned to the NHSP.
Case 1:14-cv-00386-PB Document 223 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 3

3
allegations do not suffice to establish the requisite connection
between the underlying claims and relief requested in his motion
for injunctive relief. 	For that reason, the district judge
should deny Gray’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief
(Doc. No. 191) without prejudice to Gray’s ability to seek such
relief in a new action.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
Gray’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 191).
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
April 2, 2018
cc: 	Jeffrey M. Gray, pro se
Francis Charles Fredericks, Esq.
Case 1:14-cv-00386-PB Document 223 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 3