Beaulieu v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Robert Beaulieu,
a/k/a/ Crystal Beaulieu1
v. Civil No. 15-cv-012-JD
Craig Orlando et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Christopher “Crystal” Beaulieu, a New Hampshire
State Prison (“NHSP”) inmate, has filed a “Motion for Court
Order” (Doc. No. 111) and “Motion for Gag Order by Court Order”
(Doc. No. 120), both seeking injunctive relief. The defendant
prison officials object to the “Motion for Court Order.” See
Doc. No. 13. No objection has been filed to the “Motion for Gag
Order by Court Order.” Both motions have been referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge for proposed findings and
recommendations as to disposition. See Feb. 14, 2017 Order;
Mar. 30, 2017 Order.
Background
In this action, Beaulieu has asserted seven claims,
alleging violations of her rights under the Eighth Amendment and
1Plaintiff is an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison
who identifies herself as a transsexual female. The court thus
uses the pronouns “she” and “her” to refer to the plaintiff.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 9

2
state law, against NHSP officials, arising out of events that
have occurred during Beaulieu’s incarceration at the NHSP.
Those incidents include: (1) an alleged incident of officers’
use of excessive force against Beaulieu on March 7, 2012; (2)
the alleged failure of prison officials to protect Beaulieu from
known risks of physical and/or sexual violence, on April 18,
2014 and April 30, 2014; and (3) alleged sexual assaults by
inmate Matthew Rodier on one occasion in February 2014, and
again on April 30, 2014.
Beaulieu previously filed two motions for preliminary
injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 62, 66) in this matter, which were
denied after a November 21, 2016 hearing. See Mar. 20, 2017
Order (Doc. No. 124) (approving Feb. 23, 2017 R. & R. (Doc. No.
121)). In the instant motions for preliminary injunctive relief
(Doc. Nos. 111 and 120), which Beaulieu describes as similar to
her previously denied motions for injunctive relief, see Doc.
No. 111, at 2, Beaulieu asserts that she requires court
intervention to protect her safety, her right to access the
courts, and her constitutional rights. In particular, Beaulieu
alleges that since the November 21, 2016 hearing, she has been
written up for multiple disciplinary violations, suffered
unspecified “mental and physical injury,” and had some of her
legal documents destroyed by NHSP officers.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 9

3
In her motion for a court order (Doc. No. 111), Beaulieu
seeks an injunction directing that Lt. Paul Carroll and Capt.
Michael Edmark be removed from the NHSP’s Secure Housing Unit
(“SHU”), that the “Keep Away” between Beaulieu and inmate Steven
Newcombe be rescinded; and that Beaulieu be transferred to a
county jail, both for her safety and to protect her
constitutional rights. Beaulieu also seeks an order directing
the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to allow her
to marry Newcombe. Finally, Beaulieu asks the court to order
the DOC to conduct an investigation of SHU staff misconduct. In
support of her request for a preliminary injunction directed to
prison officials, Beaulieu alleges the following:
 on December 5, 2016, NHSP Sgt. Totten used unnecessary
force upon Beaulieu, inflicting injury and pain;
 on December 5, 2016, Sgt. Totten refused Beaulieu
protective custody status;
 on December 18, 2016, an inmate from whom Beaulieu is
supposed to be separated by a “Keep Away,” was moved to a
cell beneath Beaulieu’s;
 on January 4, 2017, Beaulieu was placed in “the hole,” for
fifteen days, during which she was verbally abused, and was
threatened with additional time in “the hole”;
 on January 20, 2017, Lt. Carroll stopped Beaulieu’s law
library time because Beaulieu was speaking to Newcombe;
 prison officials have not allowed Beaulieu to have contact
with Newcombe, in light of a “Keep Away” in place requiring
that Beaulieu and Newcombe be separated, the necessity of
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 3 of 9

4
which Beaulieu disputes;
 prison officials have interfered with Beaulieu’s
fundamental right to marry Newcombe; and
 SHU officers have violated Beaulieu’s rights as a
transsexual by refusing to let her shave for thirty days
and denying her cosmetic surgery.
In her “Motion for Gag Order” (Doc. No. 120), Beaulieu asks
this court to direct defendant Rodier not to talk to anyone
other than the parties in this case about any matter relating to
this case. In support of that request, Beaulieu asserts that
both she and Rodier are inmates at the NHSP, and that if other
inmates were to hear that Beaulieu had reported being sexually
assaulted by Rodier, Beaulieu would be considered a “snitch” by
the other inmates, which would jeopardize her safety.
Additionally, Beaulieu states that her right to privacy as a
sexual assault victim would be violated if Rodier were permitted
to speak about this case.
Discussion
I. Preliminary Injunction Standard
“‘A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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 in his favor, and that
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 4 of 9

5
an injunction is in the public interest.'” Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736 (2015) (citation omitted); see also Voice
of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d
26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011). The likelihood of success on the merits
and irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction are the
factors that weigh most heavily in the analysis. See Esso Std.
Oil Co. v. Monroig–Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2006) (“if
the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed
in his quest,” preliminary injunctive relief is properly denied
without further analysis); Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV
Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (“perhaps
the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not
granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm
before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” (internal
quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted)). The
burden of proof is on the movant. See Esso Std. Oil Co., 445
F.3d at 18.
The court may rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction
on the papers if it has before it “‘adequate documentary
evidence upon which to base an informed, albeit preliminary
conclusion,’” Campbell Soup Co. v. Giles, 47 F.3d 467, 471 (1st
Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), and the parties have been
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 5 of 9

6
afforded “‘a fair opportunity to present relevant facts and
arguments to the court, and to counter the opponent's
submissions,’” id. at 470. The parties have had such an
opportunity to date, and an additional opportunity for briefing
is provided by the objection period that follows the issuance of
this Report and Recommendation.
II. Relationship of Requested Injunction to Underlying Claims
Beaulieu’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 111),
seeking to enjoin certain conduct on the part of DOC officials,
seeks relief connected to claims that are not pending against
the DOC 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 sub nom., Polansky v.
NH Dep't of Corr., No. 12-CV-105-PB, 2013 WL 1155429, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 38608 (D.N.H. Mar. 19, 2013).
The only basis upon which the court can find there is a
relationship between the claims in this action and plaintiff’s
request for injunctive relief against DOC officials is that
Beaulieu claims the conduct she seeks to enjoin is retaliation
for her litigation here. However, no retaliation claim is
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 6 of 9

7
pending in this case. Plaintiff’s allegations do not suffice,
therefore, to establish the requisite connection between the
underlying claims and relief requested in her motion for
injunctive relief. For that reason, Beaulieu’s motion for a
court order (Doc. No. 111) should be denied.
III. Gag Order
As a preliminary matter, the court notes that in Beaulieu’s
motion for a gag order, in which she seeks to enjoin the conduct
of defendant Rodier, Beaulieu does not certify that she has
served a copy of the motion on Rodier. The motion is subject to
dismissal on that basis. However, even if the motion has been
served on Rodier, the court finds the motion should be denied on
its merits, for the reasons stated below.
Beaulieu’s request for a “gag order” is overbroad, as it
would, if granted, prevent Rodier from contacting potential
witnesses in this case, or even, taken literally, an attorney
from whom Rodier might seek advice in this matter. Also, the
requested gag order would prevent Rodier from discussing factual
assertions that Beaulieu herself has already placed in the
public record in this case. The court is not inclined to
recommend that the district judge issue an order which would
prevent a defendant from accessing tools he may need to defend
this matter.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 7 of 9

8
Additionally, Beaulieu has not pointed to any facts or
circumstances that would indicate that Rodier has actually
spoken to anyone about this case in a manner that is potentially
harmful to Beaulieu, or that Rodier is likely to do so. Without
a demonstration that Rodier is likely to act in a manner that
will harm Beaulieu, or Beaulieu’s litigation of this case,
Beaulieu cannot demonstrate irreparable harm, and the requested
“gag order” is properly denied on that basis. Accordingly,
Beaulieu’s request for a gag order should be denied, without
prejudice to reassertion of the request should circumstances
warrant in the future.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should find
that Beaulieu has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that
she is entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief and gag
order she seeks, and should deny her motions (Doc. Nos. 111,
120) seeking such relief. 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
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 8 of 9

9
order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 24, 2017
cc: Christopher “Crystal” Beaulieu, pro se
Matthew Rodier, pro se
Laura E. B. Lombardi, Esq.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 146 Filed 07/24/17 Page 9 of 9