Court Opinion

ID: 2964293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:32.932747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.360275
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1222

                                   ERVIN TRIPLETT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                JOSEPH LEHMAN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ervin Triplett on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,  Diane  Sleek  and  Peter J.
            ________________                       ____________       ________
        Brann, Assistant Attorney Generals, on brief for appellees.
        _____

                                 ____________________

                                   August 21, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff Ervin Triplett  appeals a
                 __________    ___ __

            district  court order  that dismissed  his 42  U.S.C.    1983

            complaint  for injunctive relief  from the alleged  denial of

            his right  of access to  the courts.  That  complaint alleged

            that  the  defendant  employees of  the  Maine  Department of

            Corrections  had violated that  right by denying  or ignoring

            plaintiff's requests for access to the prison  law library at

            MCI-Warren.1
                       1

                 As   it  is  undisputed  that  plaintiff  is  no  longer

            incarcerated  at MCI-Warren, we agree that the district court

            properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint as moot.  See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Munsingwear,  340 U.S. 36,  39-40 (1950); Gomes  v.
            ______    ___________                               _____

            Rhode Island Interscholastic  League, 604 F.2d 733,  736 (1st
            ____________________________________

            Cir.  1979); Keleghan v. Industrial Trust  Co., 211 F.2d 134,
                         ________    _____________________

            135 (per curiam).   We decline  to address plaintiff's  claim

            that  the defendants  transferred him  out  of MCI-Warren  in

            retaliation  for filing  this lawsuit.    As plaintiff  never

            clearly alleged that he was seeking damages for a retaliatory

            transfer  and further  failed to  serve  the defendants  with

            notice of this claim, it is not properly before us.

                 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                       ________

                                
            ____________________

               1Although we do not reach the issue in the present appeal,
               1
            we  note that  the plaintiff's  complaint  patently fails  to
            state  a  viable  claim  under  the  Supreme  Court's  recent
            decision in Lewis v. Casey, 64 U.S.L.W. 4587, 4589 (U.S. June
                        _____    _____
            24,  1996)(holding that prisoner  must show actual  injury to
            establish violation of right of access to the courts).

                                         -2-