Initially, Graham characterized her complaint as a 1

petition for habeas corpus; however, Magistrate Judge Muirhead,

in a Report and Recommendation adopted by this court, construed

this action as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Report and

Recommendation, Doc. No. 9, at 23.) Moreover, Magistrate Judge

Muirhead also dismissed Graham’s claim that the NHSP’s urine

testing procedure was in violation of the Fourth and Eighth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Id. at 23-24.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristyn Graham

v. Case No. 07-CV-295-PB

Warden, New Hampshire State 

Prison for Women, et al.

O R D E R

Kristyn Graham, formerly an inmate at the New Hampshire

State Prison for Women (“NHSPW”) in Goffstown, New Hampshire,

filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wherein she claims

that she was subjected to inadequate medical care and inhumane

prison conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the

United States Constitution. Graham names Dan Belligeron, Head 1

Nurse and Medical Department Supervisor; Kathy Fontaine,

employee; and Jean Chapman, Nurse, as defendants in her

inadequate medical care claim. She names Joanne Fortier, Acting

Warden, as defendant in her inhumane confinement conditions

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 79 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 3
 In this order, defendants are collectively referred to as 2

“NHSP” for convenience. 

-2-

claim. NHSP has filed a motion for summary judgment. 2

Graham began her sentence at the NHSPW in February 2006. In

March 2007, she was released on administrative home confinement,

and she returned to the prison on May 31, 2007. On July 2, 2008,

she was transferred to a halfway house where she remained until

she was discharged on August 29, 2008. 

In addition to her request for release from incarceration,

Graham’s complaint “seeks injunctive and monetary relief for

wrongs committed by the defendants as state actors in their

official capacities.” (Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 9, at

21.) Thus, construed liberally, Graham’s complaint asserts three

forms of relief: (a) release, (b) prospective injunctive relief,

and (c) monetary damages.

Graham’s request to be released from incarceration is not a

remedy for the Eighth Amendment claims she has asserted. Glaus

v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387-88 (7th Cir. 2005) (The

appropriate remedy for an inmate whose medical treatment amounts

to cruel and unusual punishment “would be to call for proper

treatment, or to award him damages; release from custody is not

an option.”); Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 79 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Cir. 1990) (The appropriate remedy for “prison conditions that

violate the Eighth Amendment during legal incarceration is to

require the discontinuance of any improper practices, or to

require correction of any condition causing cruel and unusual

punishment.”). Moreover, because Graham is no longer

incarcerated at the NHSPW, the request for release is moot. The

same is true of her request for prospective injunctive relief. 

Finally, to “the extent Graham brings official capacity claims

for monetary relief against the remaining defendants,” those

claims have already been dismissed. (Report and Recommendation,

Doc. No. 9, at 21-22.)

Absent a filing from Graham showing cause as to why her

claims are not moot, this matter will be dismissed thirty (30)

calendar days from the date of this ruling.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 28, 2009

cc: Kristyn Graham, pro se

James W. Kennedy, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 79 Filed 04/28/09 Page 3 of 3