United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Kiniry, pro se
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge
the court is plaintiff Aaron Kiniry's complaint (Doc. No.
1), filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
defendants, employees of the New Hampshire State Prison
("NHSP"), have violated Kiniry's constitutional
rights during his incarceration at that facility. The
complaint is before this magistrate judge for preliminary
review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a) and LR
4.3(d)(1). Kiniry's complaint also contains a request for
preliminary injunctive relief, which has been referred to
this magistrate judge for a report and recommendation as to
disposition. See Mar. 20, 2017 Order.
complaint, Kiniry alleges that he suffers from a number of
mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress
disorder, anger-management issues, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. Kiniry alleges that on more
than one occasion, corrections officers have "become
provocative" "to the point where [Kiniry] would cut
[him]self severely enough to actually attempt suicide."
Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Kiniry states that on several occasions
officers knew he was "cutting up" and did nothing
about it. Id. Kiniry suggests that defendants knew
he was suicidal as he has, more than once, overdosed on
aspirin, resulting in his hospitalization.
alleges that on one occasion, NHSP Sgt. Marshall took
pictures of Kiniry's wrist when it was "slit wide
open, " without Kiniry's consent. Id.
Kiniry states that he is "going through channels to hold
[Marshall] accountable" for taking pictures of
Kiniry's wrist. Kiniry alleges that, as a result of his
complaints about Marshall's conduct, one or more officers
have retaliated against him by discarding his property,
including sentimental items that cannot be replaced, and his
DD- 214 Form. Kiniry further asserts that the named
defendants retaliate against him "any way they can,
" and that he does not feel safe around them.
court reviews complaints filed by pro se incarcerated
plaintiffs to determine, among other things, whether
plaintiff has asserted any claim upon which relief might be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a), LR
4.3(d)(1). In determining whether a pro se pleading states a
claim, the court construes the pleading liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) .
Disregarding any legal conclusions, the court considers
whether the factual content in the pleading and inferences
reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a claim to
relief. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91,
102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Eighth Amendment Claims
alleges that the defendant corrections officers violated his
Eighth Amendment rights when they: 1) engaged in conduct that
provoked Kiniry to harm himself and/or to attempt suicide;
and 2) failed to respond when they knew that Kiniry was
engaged in self-harm and suicidal behavior. Kiniry's
claims concerning this conduct allege violations of his
Eighth Amendment rights.
Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause
requires prison officials to take "reasonable measures
to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) . To establish
unconstitutional endangerment, an inmate must assert facts to
demonstrate that, objectively, he was incarcerated
"under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm, " and that the involved prison officials knew of
and disregarded the excessive risk to the inmate's
safety. Id. at 834.
order to state a claim for the denial of adequate medical
care under the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege that
defendants committed "acts or omissions . . .
sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs." Leavitt v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 645 F.3d 484, 497 (1st Cir. 2011). At a minimum,
the plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant(s)
possessed a purposeful, knowing, or reckless state of mind,
as " 'liability for negligently inflicted
harm is categorically beneath the threshold of ...