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
William Wrenn, Commissioner,
New Hampshire Department of
Corrections et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is the complaint (doc. no. 1) filed by New
Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) inmate Christopher Beaulieu,
alleging that defendants have violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. The matter is before the court for
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR
1In the caption of his complaint (doc. no. 1), plaintiff has
named the New Hampshire Department of Corrections Commissioner
William Wrenn and Assistant Commissioner Helen Hanks, and the
following New Hampshire State Prison employees: Warden Richard
M. Gerry; Capt. Paul S. Cascio; Capt. Charles G. Boyajian; Unit
Manager Robert P. McGrath; Sgt. Thomas Akerley; Lt. James Brown;
Lt. Paul Carroll; Hearings Officer Ike Barton; Cpl. Craig
Orlando; Cpl. Paige Kimball; Director Colon K. Forbes;
Corrections Officers Wayne Defeo, John Thimba, Christopher
Bernstein, Christopher Ziemba, Joseph Michaud, and John Aulis;
Cpl. Paige Kimball; Dr. Paul Brown; Dr. Jeffrey Fetter; Nurse
Practitioners Lois Harriman, Catherine Fontaine, and Emily
Bryant; Mental Health providers Deb Green and Daryl Bazydlo;
Victim Advocate Jean Carroll; and Social Worker Barbara T.
Slayton.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 10

2
4.3(d)(1).
Standard
In determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim,
the court construes the pleading liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Disregarding any legal
conclusions, the court considers whether the factual content in
the pleading and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as
true, state a facially plausible claim to relief. Hernandez-
Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Discussion
I. Excessive Force
Beaulieu has alleged a plausible claim that NHSP Cpl. Craig
Orlando and C.O. Christopher Ziemba used excessive force against
him on March 7, 2013, “maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm,” rather than “in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In an Order
issued this date, the court therefore directs service of an
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Orlando and
Ziemba.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 10

3
II. Endangerment Claims
Beaulieu alleges that defendants placed him in danger, or
failed to protect him from harm, on a number of occasions during
his incarceration at the NHSP. To establish unconstitutional
endangerment, an inmate must assert facts to demonstrate that,
objectively, he was incarcerated “under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm,” and that the involved prison
officials knew of and disregarded the excessive risk to the
inmate’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
An official’s knowledge of a substantial risk is a factual
question that may be demonstrated “‘in the usual ways, including
inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may
conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from
the very fact that the risk was obvious.’” Calderón-Ortiz v.
LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60, 65 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Farmer,
511 U.S. at 842). On the other hand, officials will not be
liable if they responded reasonably to a known substantial risk.
See Giroux v. Somerset Cnty., 178 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1999)
(citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844).
Beaulieu claims that in January 2012, he reported to a
nurse that he had been raped by another inmate, “A.D.” When the
nurse filed a report under the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(“PREA”), and the report was investigated, A.D. discovered that
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 10

4
Beaulieu had made that report. A.D communicated a threat to
Beaulieu, that if he didn’t recant his statement, A.D. would
hurt both Beaulieu and Beaulieu’s family. In response, Beaulieu
told prison officials that his rape report was false. Beaulieu
complains here, however, that A.D. was later allowed a prison
job that allowed him access to Beaulieu while Beaulieu was
housed in SHU.
In February 2014, while Beaulieu was house din the Special
Housing Unit (“SHU”) in a “supervised care” cell, Beaulieu
states that he was again raped, by another inmate, “M.R.”
Beaulieu states that the rape occurred because the SHU officers
don’t pay adequate attention to what is happening in the cells
on that unit. Beaulieu fails to state what specific factors
about his housing placement and what the SHU officers failed to
do that would allow the court to find either that the officers
were aware, or should have been aware, that Beaulieu was at risk
of harm, or that any officer with knowledge of such a risk
failed to reasonably respond thereto. When Beaulieu did reveal
the rape by M.R., in a group therapy session, his social worker
and other officers, including the NHSP Investigations Unit, took
actions in response to his report.
On July 16, 2014, Beaulieu states that he was placed in the
Residential Treatment Unit (“RTU”) at the prison, after a long
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 10

5
wait. On the day of Beaulieu’s arrival at RTU, he states that
an inmate there, “J.B.,” asked to speak with Beaulieu, and that
when Beaulieu entered J.B.’s cell, J.B. pressured Beaulieu to
engage in sexual acts with him. When Beaulieu refused, J.B.
forcibly raped Beaulieu. Although an officer allegedly saw
something occur between Beaulieu and J.B., Beaulieu told the
officer that nothing had happened, because he didn’t trust NHSP
officers to respond appropriately to protect his safety.
Beaulieu spent most of 2013 and part of 2014 in SHU.
Beaulieu complains that several SHU officers “let it be known”
that Beaulieu had been “ratting” or “snitching,” and that as a
result, Beaulieu received threats from other inmates, some of
Beaulieu’s property was missing, and someone “mess[ed] with”
Beaulieu’s food. Beaulieu states that the officers didn’t help
him with these issues or take other steps to protect him from
harm.
Beaulieu further alleges that the DOC has failed to protect
him from harm since his initial PREA report was filed, evidenced
by the fact that, since then, he has been subject to seven
assaults, five sexual assaults, and two incidents of sexual
harassment. Beaulieu does not indicate that any particular
officer was actually aware, either of these events or that
Beaulieu was at risk of any other serious harm, and still failed
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 5 of 10

6
to take steps to respond appropriately that risk.
While Beaulieu has asserted that he suffered serious harm
from other inmates, he also states that on the occasion he
reported being raped, he then told prison staff that the report
was false. On another occasion, Beaulieu was raped, but denied
it to staff, and, on a third occasion, staff was unaware that
Beaulieu had been raped. Beaulieu has failed to state facts to
show that any defendant was actually aware that Beaulieu had
been harmed, or was aware if sufficient facts that they should
have been aware of a significant risk of serious harm to
Beaulieu, and failed to reasonably respond to those risks.
Accordingly, Beaulieu has failed to state endangerment or
failure to protect claims upon which relief might be granted.
III. False Disciplinary Reports and Denial of Due Process
Beaulieu asserts that, on two occasions, he was falsely
accused, and found guilty of disciplinary violations, and that
an NHSP hearings officer failed to follow prison procedures in
adjudicating those disciplinary matters, in violation of
Beaulieu’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. In
evaluating a due process challenge to a prison disciplinary
proceeding, the court must determine if disciplinary penalties
“impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v.
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 10

7
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Beaulieu does not state what
sanctions he received, or provide any basis for this court to
find that he received sanctions that exposed him to any atypical
or substantial hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life, or otherwise exceeded the scope of his sentence.
Beaulieu has thus failed to state a claim that he suffered any
deprivation of a protected liberty interest as a result of the
challenged disciplinary proceedings, and has therefore failed to
state a due process claim. Accordingly, the district judge
should dismiss Beaulieu’s due process challenges to disciplinary
proceedings against him.
IV. Medical Care
A. Eighth Amendment Standard
To assert an Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate
medical care, plaintiff must establish that the deprivation was,
objectively, “sufficiently serious,” and must also show that,
“[s]ubjectively, . . . prison officials possessed a sufficiently
culpable state of mind, namely one of ‘deliberate indifference’
to an inmate’s health or safety.” Perry v. Roy, 782 F.3d 73, 78
(1st Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “‘To demonstrate deliberate indifference a plaintiff
must show (1) a grave risk of harm, (2) the defendant’s actual
or constructive knowledge of that risk, and (3) his failure to
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 10

8
take easily available measures to address the risk.’” Penn v.
Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102, 110 (1st Cir. 2014) (citation omitted),
cert. denied, No. 14-709, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2493, *1 (Apr. 3,
2015). Deliberate indifference is not demonstrated “where the
dispute concerns not the absence of help, but the choice of a
certain course of treatment.” Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63,
92 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted), pet. for cert. filed, No. 14-1120 (U.S. Mar. 16,
2015).
B. Ice
Beaulieu complains that NHSP Sgt. Michael Shaw failed to
give him ice for a lump on his head, as directed by a nurse, for
an injury. The allegation fails to demonstrate that Bealieu had
a “serious medical need” or that any individual was aware of the
severity of that need, and failed to provide him with treatment,
with deliberate indifference to his health and safety.
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss this claim.
C. Gender Dysphoria
Beaulieu states that he has been “trying and trying to get
diagnosed with [gender dysphoria] and start [his] treatment to
be a female.” Beaulieu states that he has talked to numerous
mental health and medical care providers at the prison, and none
has diagnosed him with gender dysphoria or authorized treatment
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 8 of 10

9
or other accommodations for that condition. Beaulieu has failed
to state any facts to show that any person at the NHSP is aware
of any facts that demonstrate that the failure to provide gender
transition treatment for Beaulieu will cause a serious risk of
harm to Beaulieu’s health and safety. The only fact asserted,
that Beaulieu disagrees with the defendants’ failure to diagnose
him with and treat him for gender dysphoria, is insufficient to
show that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss this claim.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss all of the claims asserted, except a claim alleging that
Beaulieu was subjected to excessive force on March 7, 2012, from
the complaint. Further, the district judge should drop all of
the defendants, except Cpl. Craig Orlando and C.O. Christopher
Ziemba, from this action. In an Order issued this date, the
court has directed service of the complaint, with regard to the
excessive force claim, upon Orlando and Ziemba.
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). Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 9 of 10

10
order. See United States v. De Jesús-Viera, 655 F.3d 52, 57
(1st Cir. 2011); Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617
F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 4, 2015
cc: Christopher Beaulieu, pro se
Case 1:15-cv-00012-JD Document 6 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 10