Beers v. NH State Prison, Warden et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Timothy Beers
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-968-LM
Warden, New Hampshire
State Prison, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Timothy Beers, who is incarcerated at the New
Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) and proceeding in forma pauperis
and without an attorney, has filed two motions requesting “more
time in the law library” so that he may prepare more thoroughly
researched responses to court filings. 	Doc. Nos. 20 & 22.
Liberally construed, these motions arguably seek preliminary
injunctive relief. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. 	As such, the
district judge has referred them to the undersigned magistrate
judge for a recommendation as to disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 	See Oct. 15, 2021 Order.
To succeed in a motion seeking preliminary injunctive
relief, the moving party (here Beers) “must establish that he
[or she] is likely to succeed on the merits, that he [or she] is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his [or her] favor,
and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 	Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 	The
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 29 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 3

2
elements of likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood
of irreparable harm weigh heavily in the analysis, and are
assessed in tandem. 	Id.; Shurtleff v. City of Bos., 928 F.3d
166, 171 n.3 (1st Cir. 2019). 	The burden of proof on all four
preliminary injunction factors lays with the movant. 	See Esso
Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2006).
Additionally, the movant 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). 	If
the request for injunctive relief is not related to the claims
asserted in an action, the court does not have the authority to
issue the injunctive relief requested. 	See Pac. Radiation
Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir.
2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims
not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority
to issue an injunction.”).
Beers’s motions for injunctive relief seek relief connected
to an assertion that he is being denied meaningful access to the
courts because he has not been provided with sufficient time in
the law library. 	However, there is no claim in Beers's
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 29 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 3

3
complaint asserting a violation of his right to access the
courts due to limitations on his law library time. 	Beers’s
allegations do not suffice, therefore, to establish the
requisite connection between the underlying claims and relief
requested in his motions for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the district judge should deny Beers’s motions
for an injunction directing that he be provided with additional
law library time (Doc. Nos. 20 & 22), without prejudice to his
ability to seek such relief in a separate lawsuit asserting
claims alleging that he has been denied access to the courts.
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
December 15, 2021
cc: 	Timothy C. Beers, pro se
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
Stephen J. Soule, Esq.
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 29 Filed 12/15/21 Page 3 of 3