Court Opinion

ID: 2964072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:01.058773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:50.931162
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 23, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1176

                            MAXIMILIANO AMPARO CONCEPCION,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            ADMINISTRACION DE CORRECCION,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Maximiliano Amparo Concepcion on brief pro se.
            _____________________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We agree with  the district court that
                      __________

            plaintiff's allegations with respect to his  dental treatment

            were  insufficient to  state a  constitutional claim,  and we

            affirm  the   dismissal  of  that  claim.     Plaintiff  also

            contended, however, that the correctional facility has no law

            library and outlined a denial of access to courts claim.  The

            district  court did not address  this claim when it dismissed

            plaintiff's action.  We conclude that plaintiff stated enough

            to survive a  sua sponte  dismissal of the  access to  courts

            claim  and therefore  vacate  the judgment  of dismissal  and

            remand  for further  consideration  of the  access to  courts

            claim.

                 Vacated and remanded.
                 ____________________

                                         -2-