Irvin Morales v. Helen Hanks, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.

2025 DNH 006

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 23-cv-522-SM-TSM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Irvin Morales

v. Case No. 23-cv-522-SM-TSM Opinion No. 2025 DNH 006 Helen Hanks, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Irvin Morales, who is an inmate and proceeding pro se,

challenges the decision of Commissioner Hanks and others to

return him to prison in New Jersey where he was originally

incarcerated. Magistrate Judge Saint-Marc recommended that the

court deny Irvin Morales’s motion for a preliminary injunction,

seeking an order to return him to New Hampshire. Doc. no. 39.

The court approved the report and recommendation but stated that

if Morales filed a timely and meritorious objection, the court

would reconsider that decision. End. or. Sept. 30, 2024.

Morales filed an objection to the report and recommendation

(doc. no. 43), and the defendants filed a response (doc. no.

44). For the following reasons, Morales has not provided

grounds to reconsider the court’s order approving the report and

recommendation. Background

Morales is serving a sentence imposed by a New Jersey court

and originally served his sentence in New Jersey. In 2009,

Morales asked the New Jersey Department of Corrections to

transfer him to New Hampshire under the Interstate Corrections

Compact so that he could be closer to his family. Morales was

transferred to New Hampshire in 2010.

In 2017, Morales brought a civil lawsuit in this court in

which he alleged that prison employees violated his rights

during a strip search. Morales v. Doe, No. 17-cv-00234-SM

(D.N.H). In 2022, Morales brought a suit in state court,

alleging that the prison failed to provide him needed medical

treatment after he was sprayed in the eyes with a chemical that

damaged his eyes and his eyesight. Morales v. N.H. Dep’t of

Corr., No. 217-2022-cv-00425 (N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack Cty.).

While Morales’s suits were pending, in 2022, the defendants

transferred him to the prison’s Secure Housing Unit based on a

disciplinary offense and then to the Closed Custody Unit

(“CCU”). When Morales heard that he would likely be transferred

to the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility in Berlin,

New Hampshire, he suffered a mental breakdown due to his concern

about his safety, and he was placed in isolation in a mental

health unit. He was then returned to the CCU, but when he

became ill, he was transferred to the medical unit, and then

2 back to the CCU. Morales was transferred to New Jersey on

November 3, 2022.

Morales filed this action on December 4, 2023, alleging

that the defendants transferred him within the prison and then

back to New Jersey in retaliation for the two prior lawsuits.

He sought a preliminary injunction to require the defendants to

return him to the New Hampshire State Prison. In the report and

recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion

be denied because Morales had not shown a likelihood of success

on the merits of his retaliation claim. Doc. no. 39, at 25.

Discussion

Morales objects to the report and recommendation on the

grounds that the magistrate judge denied his motion for a

preliminary injunction based upon the wrong standard.

Specifically, Morales notes that the magistrate stated that he

was seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction to be moved to

New Hampshire, which requires a more stringent standard of

proof, based on an erroneous assumption that the status quo was

his incarceration in New Jersey. Morales argues that he was

seeking a prohibitory injunction, based on the status quo of his

incarceration in New Hampshire, which is not subject to a

heightened proof standard.

3 Whether or not the magistrate judge erred in the location

of the status quo incarceration (and the resulting type of

injunctive relief sought) is not material to the recommendation

that the preliminary injunction be denied. After acknowledging

the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction, the

magistrate judge stated that despite that standard, whether a

preliminary injunction was warranted would be measured under the

four-factor test applicable to all preliminary injunctions

regardless of the status quo. That is the standard that

magistrate used in the analysis of Morales’s motion.

The most important of the four factors is the moving

party’s showing of his likelihood of success on the merits of

his claim. US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie's Coffee

LLC, 121 F.4th 339, 347 (1st Cir. 2024) (“Likelihood of success

on the merits is the sine qua non of the preliminary injunction

analysis.”) “To demonstrate likelihood of success on the

merits, plaintiffs must show more than mere possibility of

success—rather, they must establish a strong likelihood that

they will ultimately prevail.” Sindicato Puertorriqueño de

Trabajadores v. Fortuño, 699 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2012)

(internal quotation marks omitted). The magistrate judge

examined Morales’s likelihood of success on his retaliation

claim under that standard, not a heightened standard applicable

4 to a mandatory injunction, and found it wanting. Doc. no. 39,

at 25.

Therefore, the determination that Morales was seeking a

mandatory injunction did not affect the magistrate judge’s

analysis, which was based on the correct preliminary injunction

standard.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court affirms its prior

decision to approve the report and recommendation (doc. no. 39)

to deny a preliminary injunction.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

January 30, 2025

cc: Irvin Morales, pro se Counsel of record