Court Opinion

ID: 2964568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:34.660565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:18.195685
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1454

                                WILLIAM S. SIRES, JR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               MICHAEL V. FAIR, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William S. Sires, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and
            ____________________
        Charles   M.  Wyzanski,   Senior  Litigation   Counsel,  Massachusetts
        ______________________
        Department  of  Correction,  on  Motion For  Summary  Disposition  and
        Memorandum Of Law for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 10, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Appellant  William Sires, an inmate  in the
                 __________

            Massachusetts  prison system, appeals  a district court order

            denying  his  motion  to   hold  appellees  in  contempt  for

            violation of  a previous court order requiring  that they use

            their best efforts  to ensure that he  receive proper medical

            care while  in prison.   Sires further  alleges the  district

            court erred in  refusing to grant  his request for  discovery

            and  the subpoena of witnesses.   Sires also  appeals a court

            order relieving  his court appointed  counsel of the  duty of

            further representing him and refusing to appoint new counsel.

            Finally,  Sires  claims  that  the district  court  erred  in

            ordering  him not  to  "file any  additional motions  without

            prior authorization  of this court."  We  affirm the district

            court on all claims, except that of the injunction.

                 The district  court in the  instant case held  a lengthy

            hearing at which it heard testimony concerning the quality of

            Sires'  health  care.    It  then  made  a  factual  finding,

            supportable in the record, that, while that care had not been

            "optimal,"  appellees had  nevertheless  made  a  good  faith

            effort to comply with  the previous order.  We  have reviewed

            the record carefully and  find no abuse of discretion  in the

            court's denial of Sires' contempt motion. 

                 Moreover,  the record indicates  that Sires  suffered no

            prejudice  from the  district  court's failure  to grant  his

                                         -2-

            request for the  production of documents  and the issuing  of

            subpoenas to witnesses.  

                 Appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is required

            only  in "exceptional  circumstances."  DesRosiers  v. Moran,
                                                    __________     _____

            949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir.  1991).  The record indicates  that

            the  issues at the contempt hearing were not complex and that

            Sires was  well able  to represent  himself.  Therefore,  the

            court did not abuse its discretion in  relieving Sires' court

            appointed counsel  of the duty of  further representation and

            refusing to appoint new counsel. 

                 In respect to the injunction, federal courts do "possess

            discretionary  powers to  regulate  the  conduct  of  abusive

            litigants."   Cok v. Family  Court of Rhode  Island, 985 F.2d
                          ___    ______________________________

            32,   34  (1st   Cir.  1993).     Accordingly,   "in  extreme

            circumstances  involving  groundless  encroachment  upon  the

            limited time and resources of the court and other parties, an

            injunction  barring  a  party  from  filing  and   processing

            frivolous  and  vexatious   [motions]  may  be  appropriate."

            Castro v. United States,  775 F.2d 399, 408 (1st  Cir. 1984).
            ______    _____________

            Nevertheless,  any bar must be "narrowly tailored."  Sires v.
                                                                 _____

            Gabriel,  748   F.2d  49,  51   (1st  Cir.  1984),   lest  it
            _______

            "impermissibly infringe upon a litigator's right of access to

            the courts,"   Castro, 775  F.2d at 410.   Such an injunction
                           ______

            must "remain very much  the exception to the general  rule of

            free access to the  courts" and must be used  with particular

                                         -3-

            caution against a pro  se plaintiff.  Pavilonis v.  King, 626
                              ___  __             _________     ____

            F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir. 1980).  This court reviews entry of

            such injunctions for abuse of discretion.  Id. at 408.
                                                       __

                 The injunction in this case is more problematic.   Sires

            was  not  "warned  or  otherwise  given  notice  that  filing

            restrictions were contemplated," Cok, 985 F.2d at 35;  he had
                                             ___

            not been afforded "an opportunity to respond" before entry of

            the  injunction, see id.; and  there was no  request from the
                             ___ ___

            defendants for such an order, see Pavilonis, 626 F.2d at 1079
                                          ___ _________

            ("Generally,  this kind  of  order should  not be  considered

            absent a request by the harassed defendants.").  While no one

            of   these  factors,   standing   alone,  would   necessarily

            invalidate the injunction, they are fatal here because it  is

            unclear that the  record supports the injunction.   Denial of

            routine access  to the courts  is an  "extreme" measure,  and

            "[l]itigiousness   alone   will   not   support   [such]   an

            injunction."   Id.  Here, however, the district court made no
                           ___

            findings that Sires'  filings had been  frivolous, vexatious,

            or otherwise of a type and kind that would justify injunctive

            relief.   Therefore, the fairest course here is to vacate the

            injunction and remand the  case for such further proceedings,

            if any, as the district court desires to undertake.

                 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
                 _______________________________________________

                                         -4-