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
New Hampshire Department of Corrections,
Commissioner Helen E. Hanks et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff, Christopher (Crystal) Beaulieu, a
transgender female inmate in the New Hampshire State Prison for
Men (“NHSP”), has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) and four
pleadings (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 18) that are construed as addenda
to the complaint. 	The original complaint and those addenda are
before this court for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and LR 4.3(d). 	Beaulieu has also filed a motion to
amend (Doc. No. 6), a motion to correct/amend (Doc. No. 18), and
two motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 7,
8), which have been referred to this magistrate judge for a
1This court construes the pleadings liberally as intending
to name as defendants New Hampshire Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) Commissioner Helen Hanks; New Hampshire State Prison
(“NHSP”) Warden Michelle Edmark; NHSP Lt. Dupris or Dupuis
(whose first name is unknown (“FNU”)); NHSP Corrections Officer
(“CO”) E. Bazile; NHSP Sgt. Robert Parent; NHSP CO Josh Ellis;
NHSP Capt. Daniel Boynton; NHSP Lt. Troy Fontaine; NHSP Lt.
Benjamin Carver; NHSP CO FNU Seabron; NHSP Capt. Scott Marshall;
and NHSP CO Christopher Berntsen or Bernstein; NHSP Maj. Jon
Fouts; DOC Director of Safety and Security Christopher Kench;
NHSP Cpl. FNU Eisman; NHSP CO FNU Oyiri; NHSP Cpl. Ryan Hyde;
NHSP Lt. Phil Hill; and NHSP Cpl. FNU Susca.
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 1 of 19

2
report and recommendation (“R&R”). 	In addition, Beaulieu has
filed notices of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), see Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17, which have
withdrawn the claims numbered in this R&R as Claims 1(a), 1(b),
2(b), 2(e), and 3(a)-(g).
Background
I. 	Strip Searches
Beaulieu, who takes female hormones, has developed breasts,
and she has asked prison officials to make sure that female
guards conduct Beaulieu’s strip searches from the waist up.
Those requests have been denied. 	A female CO told Beaulieu that
female COs have not wanted to be involved in strip-searching
transgender female inmates.
On June 19, 2018, NHSP corrections officer (“CO”) Cpl. Ryan
Hyde and Cpl. Lac ordered Beaulieu to strip for a search in an
isolation cell in the Health Services Center. 	Cpl. Hyde
directed an unnamed CO to point a taser at Beaulieu to coerce
her compliance with the search. 	Beaulieu then stripped in front
of the male officers, including Cpl. Hyde.
II. 	Endangerment
A. 	September 20, 2018 Altercation
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 2 of 19

3
Beaulieu alleges that on September 20, 2018, when she was
housed in the Residential Treatment Unit (“RTU”), inmate Kevin
Smith threatened her, chased after her, and struck her on the
side of her face, causing vision impairment, headaches, and a
cut that required three stitches. 	Beaulieu, who alleges that
she defended herself, further asserts that NHSP CO Seabron (the
ward officer) was in the breakroom at the time of the assault;
Cpl. Christopher Bernstein (a third shift officer) was “sleeping
on the job,” when, in full view of the “Bubble,” Smith tried to
smash Beaulieu’s head against the floor; and Lt. Benjamin Carver
was taking a “lap around the 2nd floor” when inmate Smith was
“coming at her in a hostile manner.” 	Beaulieu claims that each
of those officers failed to attend to their duties and protect
her despite knowing that she is a transgender inmate with
feminine characteristics who requires extra protection, and that
the RTU has a “history of violence.” 	That incident resulted in
Beaulieu’s transfer to the Close Custody Unit (“CCU”).
B. 	November 9, 2018 CCU Cell Placement
On November 9, 2018, the date of Beaulieu’s arrival in the
CCU, CCU CO Glenn Nimoriski and CCU Cpl. Josh Ellis were
responsible for assigning Beaulieu to a cell. 	Those officers,
who were both aware that, in the past, Beaulieu had requested
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 3 of 19

4
protective custody (“PC”) status from an inmate gang known as
the Brotherhood of White Warriors (“BOWW”), gave Beaulieu the
option of either: (1) moving into a cell with BOWW member James
Merchant on the CCU C-tier, or (2) seeking protective custody.
When Beaulieu declined to seek PC status, the officers moved her
into Merchant’s cell, where she remained until officers moved
her to a cell by herself on the CCU B-tier on November 29, 2018.
C. 	December 5, 2018 Assault in CCU
On December 5, 2018, about one week after Beaulieu had been
moved out of inmate Merchant’s cell on C-tier, CCU CO Bazile
released the lock on Beaulieu’s cell door so that Beaulieu could
enter the B-tier corridor to receive medication. 	Bazile was on
the phone, Beaulieu alleges, and was not paying attention to
which inmates were out of their cells at that time. 	Beaulieu
left her cell and took a detour towards C-tier to mail a letter.
Near the unit sergeant’s office, Beaulieu encountered Merchant,
who first asked, “Remember me?” and then punched and kicked
Beaulieu four times in the face. 	Beaulieu asserts that the
assault lasted several minutes, disfigured her nose, and caused
her to have headaches and flashbacks. 	Beaulieu asserts that it
took CCU officers Cpl. Eisman, CO Oyiri, and Lt. Dupuis almost
five minutes to respond to her screams during that attack,
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 4 of 19

5
although they were in the nearby sergeant’s office. 	Beaulieu
further alleges that those officers knew that she was vulnerable
to inmate violence as a transgender sex offender with feminine
characteristics who was known within the NHSP as a “snitch.”
D. 	June/July 2019 Housing Placement
Beaulieu alleges that she was transferred back to a general
prison population unit, known as Medium Custody North (“MCN”),
on June 6, 2019 and was given a choice of housing. 	Declining a
cell she considered to be insufficiently protective of her
privacy, Beaulieu opted for placement in a housing pod with
inmate Doane, a gang member.
Beginning in June 2019 and ending in September/October
2019, Beaulieu asserts that unit officers including Lt. Hill and
Capt. Gary Burke refused her repeated requests for a transfer to
a different MCN housing pod, made jokes about her grievances,
and Capt. Burke told her that if she could “shut up for 3 weeks”
he would consider moving her to a different housing pod.
III. Harassment/Retaliation
A. 	CCU D-reports
On dates in late 2018 and in 2019, while she remained a CCU
inmate, a number of CCU officers charged Beaulieu with multiple
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 5 of 19

6
disciplinary offenses. 	Beaulieu asserts that Sgt. Robert Parent
and the other first-shift CCU officers who wrote up most of the
“D-reports” did so to retaliate against her for suing prison
officials.
B. 	PREA Investigations and Job Loss
Beaulieu asserts that, on September 23, 2019, MCN Lt. Hill
and Cpl. Susca caused her and another inmate to be transferred
to the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) in “Pending Administrative
Review” (“PAR”) status on a PREA sexual misconduct charge she
asserts was false. 	Beaulieu asserts she was cleared of that
(first) PREA charge and released back to MCN the next day. 	In
the interim, Cpl. Susca had reassigned Beaulieu’s MCN prison
jobs to gang members and their friends.
About a week later, Lt. Hill provided the NHSP
Investigations Department with unsigned inmate request slips
that accused Beaulieu of conspiring with another inmate to
engage in a sex act. 	Beaulieu asserts that on September 30,
2019, Lt. Hill charged her with a disciplinary offense arising
from the PREA accusations. 	A (second) PREA investigation was
initiated concerning those allegations, which resulted in
Beaulieu’s transfer back to SHU, in PAR status, on October 3,
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 6 of 19

7
2019.2
Claims
The initial pleadings in this case (Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8,
and 18) assert the following claims for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983:
1. 	Defendants have violated Beaulieu’s Fourth Amendment
right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches, in
that:
a. 	Cpl. Ryan Hyde forced Beaulieu to expose her
breasts to the male COs strip-searching her, when he
directed an unnamed CO to point a taser at Beaulieu to
overcome her refusal to strip from the waist up in
front of them; and
b. 	NHSP Major Jon Fouts, NHSP Warden Michelle
Edmark, DOC Director of Safety and Security
Christopher Kench, and DOC Commissioner Helen Hanks
failed to ensure that female corrections officers
conduct strip searches of Beaulieu from the waist up.
2. 	Defendants violated Beaulieu’s Eighth Amendment rights
in that, with knowledge of the factors making Beaulieu more
vulnerable to assault and the unit’s history of inmate
violence:
a. 	NHSP CO Seabron, Cpl. Christopher Bernstein, and
Lt. Benjamin Carver were all failing to attend to
their duties, when inmate Kevin Smith struck Beaulieu
in the face on September 20, 2018 in the RTU.
b. 	Cpl. Josh Ellis and CO Glenn Nimoriski put
Beaulieu in a CCU C-tier cell with known BOWW member
James Merchant for three weeks, from November 9, 2018,
until she was moved to B-tier on November 29, 2018.
2Beaulieu remains in SHU. 	It is not clear whether the
investigation and disciplinary charges have been resolved.
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 7 of 19

8
c. 	On December 5, 2018, CCU CO E. Bazile opened
Beaulieu’s B-tier cell door and released her to
receive medications at the same time as her former
cellmate, James Merchant, had been released into C-
tier, leading to an encounter during which Merchant
punched and kicked Beaulieu.
d. 	CCU officers Cpl. Eisman, CO Oyiri, and Lt.
Dupuis heard, but did not respond to, Beaulieu’s
screams during Merchant’s assault on December 5, 2018,
for about five minutes, exposing Beaulieu to a
substantial risk of serious harm.
e. 	After Beaulieu rejected an offer on June 8, 2019,
to move into a cell in Medium Custody North that she
considered to be insufficiently protective of her
privacy:
i. 	Lt. Hill transferred Beaulieu into a housing
pod that has a history of inmate violence, where
Robert Doane, a known member of the violent
inmate gang BOWW, was housed, and
ii. 	Between June 8, 2019 and September/October
2019, Lt. Hill, Capt. Gary Burke, and Cpl. Susca
refused Beaulieu’s requests for a transfer to a
different cell or housing pod.
3. 	In retaliation for Beaulieu’s engagement in conduct
protected by the First Amendment,
a. 	While Beaulieu was in Medium Custody North in
October 2018, Sgt. Robert Parent charged Beaulieu with
disciplinary offenses, which resulted in Beaulieu’s
transfer to a heightened custody unit;
b. 	Officers, including Sgt. Parent, Cpl. Ellis, CO
Bazile, CO Nimoriski, CO Oyeri, and Lt. Troy Fontaine,
charged Beaulieu with multiple disciplinary offenses
in January 2019, which affected her custody level and
her eligibility for parole;
c. 	Cpl. Ellis subjected Beaulieu to a false
disciplinary charge on January 10, 2019, and a
disciplinary conviction that Beaulieu successfully
appealed through the grievance process;
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 8 of 19

9
d. 	Capt. Gary Burke, Lt. Phil Hill, and Cpl. Susca
have taken adverse action against Beaulieu in that:
i. 	While Beaulieu was in MCN, Capt. Burke, Lt.
Hill, and Cpl. Susca refused her requests for
transfer to a different cell or housing pod from
June 2019 through September 2019;
ii. 	Capt. Burke and Lt. Hill made fun of how
Beaulieu characterized them in a February 2019
grievance; and
iii. Capt. Burke told Beaulieu sometime between
June 2019 and September 2019 that if she could
“shut up for 3 weeks” he would consider moving
her to a different cell or housing pod.
e. 	Lt. Hill and Cpl. Susca caused a PREA
investigation to be initiated against Beaulieu, based
on information that they had received from inmates
accusing Beaulieu of sexual misconduct, which resulted
in Beaulieu’s placement in SHU on PAR status September
23 and 24, 2019, and the loss of her inmate jobs on
Medium Custody North;
f. 	Lt. Hill issued Beaulieu a disciplinary ticket on
September 30, 2019, charging her with conspiring with
another inmate to engage in a sex act, which caused
Beaulieu to be transferred to SHU on PAR status on
October 3, 2019, pending investigation of that
disciplinary charge;
g. 	Cpl. Ellis charged Beaulieu with a disciplinary
offense at an unspecified date in 2019, but did not
charge inmates Robie and Wells, who had engaged in the
same conduct with which Beaulieu was charged at the
same time and place.
4. 	Cpl. Susca violated Beaulieu’s Fourteenth Amendment
right to equal protection, in that Cpl. Susca took away
Beaulieu’s prison jobs in September 2019 and gave them to
inmate gang members and their friends, because of Cpl.
Susca’s bias against gay people.
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 9 of 19

10
Discussion
I. 	Preliminary Review
A. 	Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of prisoner
complaints filed by inmates seeking relief from government
agents. 	See LR 4.3(d)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	In
considering whether the complaint states a claim, the court
determines whether, stripped of legal conclusions, and with all
reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff’s favor, the
complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief’” upon which relief can be granted.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Claims may be dismissed, sua sponte, if the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); LR 4.3(d)(1)(A).
B. 	Fourth Amendment Strip Search (Claims 1(a) & 1(b))
By notices filed on November 15, 2019, Beaulieu has
voluntarily dismissed the claims identified here as Claims 1(a)
and 1(b), without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
Those claims are no longer part of this case, and they provide
no grounds for granting any relief to Beaulieu. 	The following
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 10 of 19

11
defendants should be dropped as parties: 	Cpl. Ryan Hyde, NHSP
Major Jon Fouts, NHSP Warden Michelle Edmark, DOC Director of
Safety and Security Christopher Kench, and DOC Commissioner
Helen Hanks, as no claim remains in this case against them.
C. 	Eighth Amendment Endangerment (Claim 2)
1. 	Elements
“Not ‘every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of
another’ . . . ‘translates into constitutional liability.’”
Lakin v. Barnhart, 758 F.3d 66, 70 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)).
Instead, a prison official violates an inmate’s Eighth
Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment “based
on a failure to prevent harm” to the inmate only under two
circumstances: “the inmate must show that he is
incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm,” and the prison official must have acted, or
failed to act, with “deliberate indifference to inmate
health or safety.”
Lakin, 758 F.3d at 70 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). 	To act
with deliberate indifference to health and safety, a prison
“official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,
and he must also draw the inference.” 	Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
Prison officials “who actually knew of a substantial risk to
inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they
responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 11 of 19

12
was not averted.” 	Id. at 844.
2. 	Inattention (Claims 2(a) and 2(c))
Beaulieu has alleged that defendant corrections officers,
aware of Beaulieu’s particular vulnerability to assault by other
inmates, failed to perform their duties in both the RTU on
September 20, 2018, and in the CCU on December 5, 2018.
Beaulieu has specifically alleged that CO Seabron was in the
breakroom, Cpl. Bernstein was sleeping on the job in view of the
assault, and Lt. Carver was taking a lap around the floor when
inmate Smith first chased and then struck Beaulieu in the face
in the RTU, and that CO Bazile was on the phone and not paying
attention when he opened Beaulieu’s cell door, which allowed
inmate Merchant to encounter and assault her.
The facts alleged as to those incidents, taken as true,
indicate that the defendant officers’ inattention to, or
dereliction of, their duties of monitoring inmates under their
supervision resulted in injuries to an inmate known to be
vulnerable to assaults by other inmates. 	The allegations about
the defendant officers’ inattention and awareness of Beaulieu’s
vulnerability state Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference/endangerment claims upon which relief can be
granted. 	In an Order issued this date, the court directs CO
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 12 of 19

13
Seabron, Cpl. Bernstein, and Lt. Carver to file an answer to
Claim 2(a), and CO Bazile to file an answer to Claim 2(c).
3. 	Housing Placement (Claims 2(b) and 2(e))
By notices filed on November 15, 2019, Beaulieu has
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the housing placement
endangerment claims numbered here as Claims 2(b), 2(e)(i), and
2(e)(ii). 	Those claims are no longer part of this case and are
deemed to be voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1).
4. 	Delayed Response (Claim 2(d))
Beaulieu has alleged that CCU defendants Cpl. Eisman, CO
Oyiri, and Lt. Dupuis were in a nearby office in the CCU when
Merchant assaulted her on December 5, 2018, and that they heard
her scream for about five minutes before they responded. 	The
facts alleged by Beaulieu state a claim that those officers were
deliberately indifferent to a known, substantial risk of serious
harm, and failed to reasonably respond to that risk. 	In an
Order issued this date, the court has directed Cpl. Eisman, CO
Oyiri, and Lt. Dupuis, in their individual capacities, to file
an answer in response to Claim 2(d).
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 13 of 19

14
D. 	First Amendment Retaliation (Claim 3)
By notices filed on November 15, 2019, Beaulieu has
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims numbered in
this case as Claim 3(a)-(g). 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
Claim 3 provides no grounds for granting any relief to Beaulieu.
E. 	Equal Protection (Claim 4)
The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause dictates
“that ‘similarly situated persons are to receive substantially
similar treatment from their government.’” 	Kuperman v. Wrenn,
645 F.3d 69, 77 (1st Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 	To assert
an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must state facts
sufficient to show that, as compared to others similarly
situated, the plaintiff was treated differently based on an
improper consideration. 	See id. at 78.
Stripped of speculation about Cpl. Susca’s anti-gay motives
for his actions, the Complaint alleges, in pertinent part that
Cpl. Susca took away Beaulieu’s inmate jobs and gave them to
gang members or friends of gang members when Beaulieu was sent
to SHU during the course of a PREA investigation. 	Beaulieu has
not pleaded facts showing, however, that Cpl. Susca handled the
job assignments of heterosexual or non-transgender inmates
differently, upon their transfers to SHU or the initiation of
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 14 of 19

15
PREA investigations against them. 	Without more, Beaulieu’s
allegations fail to show that Susca treated similarly-situated
inmates differently on the basis of their sexual orientation or
gender identity, or that Susca’s alleged anti-gay bias played a
role in the reassignment of Beaulieu’s inmate jobs.
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss Claim 4.
F. 	Eleventh Amendment and Official Capacity
The Eleventh Amendment precludes official capacity suits
against state employees for damages. 	See Davidson v. Howe, 749
F.3d 21, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2014). 	Accordingly, the district judge
should dismiss all of the official capacity damages claims
asserted in this action.
II. 	Motions to Amend (Doc. Nos. 6 and 18)
In conducting its preliminary review of Beaulieu’s initial
pleadings, this court has liberally construed those pleadings to
include all of the factual allegations asserted in Document Nos.
6 and 18, as well as in Document Nos. 1, 7, and 8. 	The district
judge should grant the (second) motion to amend, which seeks to
add the factual allegations set forth in Document No. 18 to the
initial pleadings in this case.
The district judge should grant in part and otherwise deny
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 15 of 19

16
the (first) motion to amend (Doc. No. 6). 	That motion should be
granted to the extent the factual allegations and claims therein
are construed to be a part of the initial pleadings. 	The
district judge should otherwise deny the relief requested in
that motion to amend, to the extent that it seeks relief that is
inconsistent with the preliminary review of the pleadings, as
set forth in this R&R and in the Orders issued with this R&R.
IV. 	Preliminary Injunction (Doc. Nos. 7 and 8)
A. 	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
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.
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 16 of 19

17
B. 	Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Beaulieu initially alleged multiple instances of what she
considered to be retaliatory conduct undertaken by DOC officers,
and all of the claims that underlie her motions for preliminary
injunctions are based on the First Amendment retaliation claims
identified here as Claims 3(a)-(g). 	In that Beaulieu has
voluntarily dismissed each of those claims through the notices
she filed on November 15, 2019, Beaulieu cannot presently
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any of
those claims in this case. 	The district judge should thus deny
the motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 7, 8).
D. 	Irreparable Harm
“Irreparable harm most often exists where a party has no
adequate remedy at law.” 	Charlesbank Equity Fund II, Ltd.
P’ship v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004).
“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.” 	Id.
Beaulieu points to no non-speculative harm that is likely
to result if the injunctions she seeks are not issued now.
Accordingly, the district judge should deny Beaulieu’s motions
for preliminary injunctions (Doc. Nos. 7, 8), without prejudice
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 17 of 19

18
to her ability to file a new motion if: a change in her
circumstances warrants such relief, and she can show both
irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the claims that
underlie that motion.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends
the following:
1. 	The district judge should grant in part and deny
in part Beaulieu’s (first) motion to amend (Doc. No. 6).
That motion should be granted to the extent the factual
allegations and claims in Document No. 6 and in the
exhibits to that filing are construed to be part of the
initial pleadings in this matter, subject to the court’s
preliminary review. 	The motion should be otherwise denied,
to the extent it seeks to join any new claims and
defendants in a manner that is inconsistent with this R&R,
the Orders issued simultaneously with this R&R, and the
district judge’s Order on this R&R.
2. 	The district judge should grant the motion to
correct/amend the Complaint (Doc. No. 18), by finding that
the factual allegations in that motion are part of the
initial pleadings in this matter.
3. 	The district judge should deny without prejudice
Beaulieu’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos.
7, 8).
4. 	Claims 1(a), 1(b), 2(b), 2(e)(i), 2(e)(ii), and 3
have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). 	Claim 2(a), 2(c), and 2(d) are
the subject of an Amended Service Order issued this date.
For reasons stated in this Report and Recommendation, Claim
4 and all of the remaining claims asserted in Doc. Nos. 1,
6, 7, 8, and 18 should be dismissed.
5. 	With the exception of NHSP CO FNU Seabron; NHSP
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 18 of 19

19
CO Christopher Berntsen or Bernstein; NHSP Lt. Benjamin
Carver; NHSP CO E. Bazile; NHSP Cpl. FNU Eisman; NHSP CO
FNU Oyiri; and NHSP Lt. FNU Dupuis or Dupris, the district
judge should drop from this action, and not join, any of
the remaining defendants named in Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, and
18, as Beaulieu has not stated any claim that may proceed
against them in this action.
6. 	The district judge should dismiss all of
Beaulieu’s claims for damages asserted against any party in
his or her official capacity.
Any objections to this R&R 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
November 19, 2019
cc: 	Christopher (Crystal) Beaulieu, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00543-PB Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 Page 19 of 19