Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beaulieu v. Craig Orlando

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

March 16, 2016

Christopher Beaulieu,
v.
Cpl. Craig Orlando et al.[1]

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is a Complaint Addendum (doc. no. 21) filed by New Hampshire State Prison ("NHSP") inmate Christopher Beaulieu, asserting new claims and adding new defendants to this action. The Complaint Addendum is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR 4.3(d)(1).

Background[2]

Two claims are already pending in this matter. The first alleges that NHSP employees Craig Orlando and Christopher Ziemba used excessive force against him on March 7, 2013, after Craig Orlando falsely accused Beaulieu of assaulting him. The second claim alleges that NHSP employees Barbara Slayton, Kevin Stevenson, and Paul Cascio, failed to protect Beaulieu from a known risk of serious harm when they acted or failed to act in a manner that allowed him to be sexually assaulted by another inmate on April 30, 2014.

In the Complaint Addendum (doc. no. 21), Beaulieu seeks to add the following claims to this action:

• State law tort claims for assault and battery against Craig Orlando and Ziemba, arising out of the March 7, 2013, incident that is the basis of the excessive force claim.
• A state law tort claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against Craig Orlando arising out of that officer's allegedly false report that Beaulieu had assaulted him on March 7, 2013.
• State law tort claims for breach of duty and/or negligence against NHSP Corrections Officers Craig Orlando, Ziemba, E. Orlando, and Shaw, for failing to secure evidence concerning the March 7, 2013, incident.
• Eighth Amendment and state law claims against Shaw and E. Orlando, in their supervisory capacities, as Craig Orlando and Ziemba's supervising officers on March 7, 2013.

Discussion

I. Eighth Amendment Claim - Supervisory Liability

In general, supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lies only where "an affirmative link between the behavior of a subordinate and the action or inaction of his supervisor exists such that the supervisor's conduct led inexorably to the constitutional violation." Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 275 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Beaulieu has not alleged facts that demonstrate an affirmative link between the acts or omissions of E. Orlando and Shaw, and the alleged use of excessive force against Beaulieu, to assert supervisory liability against those individuals for the Eighth Amendment Claim. Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss the § 1983 supervisory liability claims against E. Orlando and Shaw, to the extent they are alleged as Eighth Amendment violations.

II. Official Capacity Claims and Claims for Injunctive Relief

Beaulieu asserts, in the Complaint Addendum (doc. no. 21), claims against Craig and E. Orlando, Ziemba, and Shaw in both their individual and official capacities. In his original complaint (doc. no. 1), Beaulieu asserted damages claims and claims for injunctive relief. Most of the requests for injunctive release were related to claims that have been dismissed from this case. One request for relief, however asked that "the DOC stop allowing me to be victimized." Beaulieu has neither sought preliminary injunctive relief, nor stated with specificity facts sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to such relief. Accordingly, the court finds that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.