Beaulieu v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher (Crystal) Beaulieu
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-543-PB
Benjamin Carver, Nathaniel
Seabron, Christopher Berntsen1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is the “Motion for Court Order” (Doc. No.
44), filed by Christopher (Crystal) Beaulieu, a transgender
female inmate in the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”). 	In
that motion, Ms. Beaulieu seeks an injunction requiring the
defendant corrections officers to provide her with a “loaner”
tablet, which she would use for the duration of her
incarceration. 	She asserts that her law library access has been
limited as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, and that she needs
a tablet for (unspecified) “extensive” legal work and to contact
lawyers. 	Defendants have objected, stating that Ms. Beaulieu
has ample, daily access to a loaner tablet with legal resource
capability through a sign-out process. 	See Doc. No. 45.
Discussion
I. 	Preliminary Injunction Standard
1Defendants other than those named in the caption have been
dropped from this case.
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 52 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 5

2
“‘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
an injunction is in the public interest.’” 	Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736 (2015) (citation omitted). 	The likelihood
of success and irreparable harm 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); see also Voice of the
Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32
(1st Cir. 2011). 	The burden of proof is on the movant. 	See
Esso Std. Oil Co., 445 F.3d at 18.
II. 	Irreparable Harm
Plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of court-
ordered relief, she will suffer irreparable harm. 	“A finding of
irreparable harm must be grounded on something more than
conjecture, surmise, or a party’s unsubstantiated fears of what
the future may have in store.” 	Charlesbank Equity Fund II, Ltd.
P’ship v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004).
Defendants have filed the Declaration of James J. Brown,
NHSP Corrections Lieutenant, who is assigned to Ms. Beaulieu’s
housing unit. 	Lt. Brown describes the process through which an
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 52 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 5

3
inmate lacking a tablet may request access to a loaner tablet
for up to 3½ hours per day, with an option to ask for extended
use beyond that time limit, for specific reasons including legal
work. 	See Doc. No. 45-1. 	Lt. Brown avers that a log maintained
in the housing unit states that in the thirty days from April 14
through May 14, 2020, Ms. Beaulieu signed out a loaner tablet
for twenty-one of those days, for periods of time totaling 88½
hours. 	Id. 	In addition, it is Lt. Brown’s recollection that
when Ms. Beaulieu requested extended tablet access time, she did
not state an intent to use the tablet for legal work. 	Id.
Ms. Beaulieu has not contested any of Lt. Brown’s
assertions. 	Nothing before the court suggests that there is any
substantial limit on Ms. Beaulieu’s ability to have access to a
tablet for legal work. 	A court order is not necessary to grant
Ms. Beaulieu access to legal resources. 	Accordingly, the
request for a mandatory injunction should be denied.
III. Likelihood of Success
Ms. Beaulieu bases her claim for injunctive relief on
allegations suggesting that without a tablet, she lacks access
to adequate legal resources. 	This action does not present any
underlying claim regarding COVID-19 restrictions on the law
library or tablets. 	Rather, the claims that have been allowed
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 52 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 5

4
to proceed in this case are Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect
claims, arising from an incident of violence involving Ms.
Beaulieu and another inmate. 	Ms. Beaulieu has taken no steps to
seek to supplement the complaint with any claim regarding law
library restrictions. 	Nor has she alleged any facts suggesting
that the remaining defendants, all sued in their individual
capacities, have taken any steps to limit her access to legal
resources. 	Absent grounds for joining new unrelated access-to-
the-courts claims against new defendants at this time, plaintiff
is unlikely to succeed on the merits of that claim here.
Furthermore, the claim at issue is not viable. 	There is no
freestanding federal right to a tablet or any other legal
resource tool. 	See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996).
To state an actionable access-to-the-courts claim upon which
relief can be granted, the plaintiff must allege facts showing
she was actually injured in her ability to pursue a nonfrivolous
claim in a post-conviction proceeding or other civil rights
matter that she had a right to litigate. 	See id. at 351-53.
“[T]he underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost,
is an element that must be described in the complaint, just as
much as allegations must describe the official acts frustrating
the litigation.” 	Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415
(2002). 	Ms. Beaulieu has not pleaded any facts suggesting that
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 52 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 5

5
she has suffered any actual injury in her ability to pursue any
nonfrivolous claim. 	Accordingly, Ms. Beaulieu has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with respect to
her access-to-the-courts claim. 	For that reason, the district
judge should deny the request for a mandatory injunction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
Ms. Beaulieu’s motion for a court order (Doc. No. 44). 	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 objections 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
July 8, 2020
cc: 	Christopher (Crystal) Beaulieu, pro se
Lawrence M. Edelman, Esq.
Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq.
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 52 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 5