United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Christopher Polansky, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. JOHNSTONE, Magistrate Judge.
Polansky, a former Northern New Hampshire Correctional
Facility ("NCF") inmate currently on parole, has
sued the New Hampshire Department of Corrections
("DOC"); DOC Commissioner William Wrenn; NCF Warden
Michelle Goings; and DOC health care providers, claiming that
they are liable to him for violating his federal
constitutional rights and for torts perpetrated while he was
at the NCF. Before the court are Polansky's motions for a
preliminary injunction (doc. nos. 11-14), and his motion for
an expedited ruling (doc. no. 10), through which Polansky
seeks a hearing on his claims seeking injunctive relief for
alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights at the NCF.
The court has referred those motions to the magistrate judge
for issuance of proposed findings of fact and a
recommendation as to disposition of those motions.
was an NCF inmate when he filed this action, but he has since
been released on parole. He obtained medical parole and
moved, on July 1, 2016, to a medical facility in Texas that
is not part of the New Hampshire state prison system. See
Doc. No. 8, at 3. In this action, Polansky seeks a hearing
and preliminary injunctive relief on his claims regarding the
conditions of his past confinement at NCF, including his
claims that he received inadequate treatment for pain at NCF,
inadequate care for his paraplegia and the mattress that
caused or contributed to his bed sores, insufficient bathing
and recreational opportunities at NCF, inadequate therapeutic
care, and inadequate care for other medical conditions. None
of his claims relate to his present circumstances in Texas.
obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff 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." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The burden of proof on a
motion for preliminary injunction is on the movant. See Esso
Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st
court may rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction on
the papers if it has before it "adequate documentary
evidence upon which to base an informed, albeit preliminary
conclusion, '" and the parties have been afforded
"a fair opportunity to present relevant facts and
arguments to the court, and to counter the opponent's
submissions.'" Campbell Soup Co. v. Giles,
47 F.3d 467, 470-71 (1st Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff's requests for a preliminary injunction may be
resolved on the record here, without need for an evidentiary
hearing, as the material facts are contained within the four
corners of the complaint.
Polansky's motions for preliminary injunctive relief
should be denied, without a hearing, because Polansky is no
longer an NCF inmate. He lives, sleeps, and receives medical
care, therapies, and recreational opportunities at a facility
neither owned, nor operated, by the DOC. Polansky has not
shown that there is any substantial likelihood that he will
return to the NCF. Polansky's parole and release to the
facility in Texas has thus mooted his claims for prospective
injunctive relief. See Nasious v. Colorado, 495
F.Appx. 899, 903 (10th Cir. 2012) ("hypothetical
possibility that [the plaintiff], a former inmate on
supervised release, will violate the terms of that supervised
release and be returned to the same prison and same
conditions of confinement cannot save an otherwise moot claim
for prospective injunctive relief relating to prison
conditions'" (citation omitted)). The motions for a
preliminary injunction (doc. nos. 11-14) and for a hearing on
those motions (doc. no. 10) should therefore be denied.
reasons set forth above, the district judge should deny each
motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. nos. 11-14) and
Polansky's motion for a hearing on those motions (doc.
no. 10). 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 order. See Garayalde-Rijos v. Mun. of
Carolina, 747 F.3d 15, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2014).
 In addition to the New Hampshire
Department of Corrections ("DOC") and DOC
Commissioner William Wrenn, plaintiff names the following
defendants in their individual and official capacities:
Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility Warden Michelle