Court Opinion

ID: 2963832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:52.081283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:46.607551
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 21, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1315 

                                   ANTHONY NORMAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                ELAINE ELIAS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                 [Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Anthony Norman on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  Robert Patten,  Assistant
            __________________                       _____________
        Attorney  General,  Nancy  Ankers  White, Special  Assistant  Attorney
                            ____________________
        General, and Richard C.  McFarland, Supervising Counsel, Department of
                     _____________________
        Correction, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Pro  se  appellant  Anthony  Norman
                      ___________

            appeals  from the district  court's Fed. R.  Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

            dismissal  of his  civil  rights suit  against various  state

            officials.  We affirm.

                      1.  Violation of Due Process
                          ________________________

                      Norman alleged that defendants violated his federal

            due process  rights by  suspending his  visitation privileges

            for over six months, without a hearing.  Defendants suspended

            his privileges when he  refused to provide a urine  sample to

            be tested  for drug use  and was determined  to have used  or

            possessed  marijuana at the Massachusetts Treatment Center in

            Bridgewater, where he is confined.  Norman  may assert  a due

            process  violation only  if  he  has  a liberty  interest  in

            remaining free from the restrictions  imposed on him by state

            officials.  

                      In  its  decision,  the  district  court  correctly

            explained why Norman had no liberty interest arising directly

            under the 14th Amendment  due process clause or based  on the

            federal  consent decree in King  v. Greenblatt.   There is no
                                       ____     __________

            need  to repeat its analysis here.1  Under law controlling at

            the  time it  dismissed this  case, the  district court  also

            correctly determined that Norman had no state-created liberty

                                
            ____________________

            1.  On  appeal,  Norman argues  that  the  consent decree  in
            Williams v. Lesiak granted him a liberty interest in visiting
            ________    ______
            privileges, but that  decree does not even  address itself to
            the question of visiting privileges at the Treatment Center. 

            interest.   We need not decide whether Norman has a protected

            liberty interest  under state  law under the  new methodology

            set forth  in Sandin v. Conner,  -- U.S. --, 115  S. Ct. 2293
                          ______    ______

            (1995),  because  we  affirm  the court's  decision  on  that

            question on other grounds.  

                      Norman  sought money  damages for  the alleged  due

            process  violation, declaratory  relief,  and  an  injunction

            ordering   defendants  not   to  enforce   state  regulations

            permitting the suspension of visiting privileges against him.

            But defendants are state  officials, and Norman may  not seek

            money  damages against them in their official capacity.  Will
                                                                     ____

            v.  Michigan Department  of  State Police,  491  U.S. 58,  71
                _____________________________________

            (1989).   Nor  may he  obtain money  damages against  them in

            their  individual capacities  because they  are protected  by

            qualified  immunity.    At  the   time  defendants  suspended

            Norman's  visiting  privileges,  Norman  had  no due  process

            liberty interest in being free from such  a restriction under

            then controlling  law.  Thus, defendants had no obligation to

            provide  him  with a  hearing.   Because  defendants  did not

            violate  any clearly  established constitutional  right, they

            have  qualified  immunity.   Febus-Rodriguez  v.  Betancourt-
                                         _______________      ___________

            Lebron, 14 F.3d 87, 91 (1st Cir. 1994).
            ______

                      Norman's request  for  injunctive relief  is  moot.

            The  record  shows that  his  visiting  privileges have  been

            restored, and he does  not assert that any new  suspension is

                                         -3-

            imminent.   Because  Norman  cannot obtain  money damages  or

            injunctive relief,  his  request for  declaratory  relief  is

            moot, too.  See Browning Debenture Holders' Committee v. DASA
                        ___ _____________________________________    ____

            Corp., 524  F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir.  1975) ("When, as here, an
            _____

            issue  is rendered moot by plaintiff's failure to specify . .

            .  operative  relief,  and  the  remedy  sought  is   a  mere

            declaration  of  law   without  implications  for   practical

            enforcement   upon   the  parties,   the  case   is  properly

            dismissed.").

                      2.  Violation of Federal Consent Decrees
                          ____________________________________

                      Norman  claims  that  defendants  violated  consent

            decrees entered in two federal district court cases, Williams
                                                                 ________

            v. Lesiak and King v.  Greenblatt.  We find his  arguments to
               ______     ____     __________

            be without merit.  

                      DMH officials obviously acted in "concert" with DOC

            in promulgating the substance surveillance abuse  policy with

            which Norman failed to comply.  The policy itself shows that.

            Although  DMH's reviewing authority apparently failed to sign

            the  policy, the  policy  was nonetheless  effective.   Thus,

            defendants did not  violate the provision cited by  Norman in

            the  decree entered  in  Williams.   Furthermore, Norman  has
                                     ________

            waived,  by failing  to raise  it below,  his claim  that the

            initial   suspension  of  his   visiting  privileges  by  the

            Superintendent  of  the  Treatment  Center,  a  Department of

            Corrections   employee,  violated  other  provisions  in  the

                                         -4-

            Williams decree.  United States v. Ocasio-Rivera, 991 F.2d 1,
            ________          _____________    _____________

            3  (1st Cir. 1993) (claims  not raised in  the district court

            are  not   preserved  for  appeal).     In  any   event,  the

            Administrator of the Treatment Center reviewed the suspension

            and essentially affirmed it,  suggesting that the  suspension

            of privileges took place in full compliance with the decree.

                      Nor  do  we  think  that  defendants  violated  the

            provision cited by Norman  in the decree entered in  the King
                                                                     ____

            case.  The letters communicating the Superintendent's initial

            decision to  suspend Norman's privileges  evinced no punitive

            intent, but only a  legitimate interest in enforcing security

            at the Treatment Center.  

                      3.  State Claim
                          ___________

                      Norman  argues  that  the Superintendent's  initial

            suspension of visiting privileges violated a state regulation

            authorizing the Administrator of the Treatment Center to deny

            visiting  privileges.    But  the  regulation  also   defines

            "Administrator"  to include  "his/her designee."   104  CMR  

            8.02(6).   Since the  Administrator reviewed and  essentially

            affirmed   the   Superintendent's   suspension  of   visiting

            privileges, we  conclude that the  Superintendent effectively

            acted  as  the  Administrator's  designee   for  purposes  of

            initially determining whether  Norman's misconduct  warranted

            that suspension.  

                      4.  Remaining Claims
                          ________________

                                         -5-

                      Norman's reply brief  raises claims which were  not

            raised below  or in his initial brief.  For that reason, they

            are  deemed waived,  and we  do not  consider them.   Ocasio-
                                                                  _______

            Rivera,  supra; Playboy Enterprises v. Public Service Comm'n,
            ______   _____  ___________________    _____________________

            906 F.2d 25, 40 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 959 (1990)
                                        ____________

            (claims not raised in an initial appellate brief are waived).

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -6-