Court Opinion

ID: 2964441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:42.12254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:51.545851
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1459

                                MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                LARRY E. DUBOIS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Michael Kevin Dupont on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and  David
            __________________                                           _____
        J. Rentsch, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for appellees.
        __________

                                 ____________________

                                   November 6, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Michael  Kevin DuPont appeals from the
                      __________

            district  court's denial  of preliminary  injunctive relief.1
                                                                        1

            We affirm,  without prejudice  to his  right to  seek certain

            relief anew in the district court, as is explained below.  

                      A.  Background
                          __________

                      DuPont  is incarcerated  at  MCI-Cedar Junction  in

            Massachusetts.    In 1992,  he filed  a  pro se  civil rights
                                                     ___ __

            action  against various  Department of  Corrections personnel

            and others,  seeking damages  and injunctive relief  under 42

            U.S.C.     1983.    Among  other   things,  he  alleged  that

            defendants had  violated his rights by  using excessive force

            against him, seizing his legal materials, denying him medical

            care, and threatening to confine him in a disciplinary  unit.

            At  the  time  he filed  his  complaint,  DuPont  was in  the

            Departmental Segregation Unit (DSU),  but he was later placed

            in  the  Departmental  Disciplinary  Unit  (DDU),   where  he

            remains.  

                      In  this  appeal,  DuPont challenges  the  district

            court's  denial of  his  request for  an injunction  ordering

            compliance  with certain stipulations,  agreements, or orders

            in  the following cases:   Cepulonis v. Fair,  D. Mass.,  No.
                                       _________    ____

            78-3233-Z; Stone v. Boone, D. Mass., No. 73-1083-T; Alston v.
                       _____    _____                           ______

                                
            ____________________

               1The court  accepted  a magistrate's  report  recommending
               1
            denial of some of his  requests for relief in an order  dated
            August 3,  1995, and summarily  denied other  requests in  an
            order  dated March 13, 1996.   DuPont appeals  from those two
            orders.

                                         -2-

            Fair, D. Mass., No. 77-3519-G; Hoffer v. Fair, S.J.C. No. 85-
            ____                           ______    ____

            71; and DuPont v. Hall,  Norfolk Super. Ct. No. 87-1399.   He
                    ______    ____

            also  objects  to the  court's  denial  of his  requests  for

            injunctions  forbidding  the   use  of  chemical   agents  or

            excessive force  against him,  forbidding his placement  in a

            strip cell, directing the return of postage stamps taken from

            his incoming mail  and the return of certain legal materials,

            and directing his release from the DDU.

                      B.  Discussion
                          __________

                      If the district  court has made  no clear error  of

            law or fact in its ruling on a preliminary injunction motion,

            we will not  disturb its conclusion absent  manifest abuse of

            discretion.  See Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F.2d 888, 902
                         ___ _____    ________________

            (1st Cir. 1993).   For  the reasons outlined  below, we  find

            that the  district  court  did  not overstep  its  bounds  in

            denying the requested relief.

                      Consent Decree  Violations.  In  part, DuPont seeks
                      __________________________

            orders enforcing federal or  state court consent decrees, but

            such relief is unavailable  in an individual action  under 42

            U.S.C.    1983.   See Martel v.  Fridovich, 14 F.3d  1, 3 n.4
                              ___ ______     _________

            (1st Cir. 1993).2
                            2

                                
            ____________________

               2On appeal, DuPont presents a new claim that his placement
               2
            in the DDU breached a settlement agreement in DuPont v. Fair,
                                                          ______    ____
            Plymouth  Super. Ct. No. 89-0105-B, but that claim would also
            be barred under Martel.
                            ______

                                         -3-

                      State Law Violations.  DuPont also asserts  various
                      ____________________

            state law violations, e.g., that defendants have not properly

            promulgated certain  DDU rules, did not  medically screen him

            before  placing him in the DDU, and have not provided certain

            law library  access, all  in violation  of state  statutes or

            regulations.  But he does not explain how  defendants thereby

            violated  federal law, and this court does not have the power

            to  direct state  officials to  comply with  state law.   See
                                                                      ___

            Quintero de  Quintero v. Aponte-Roque, 974 F.2d 226, 230 (1st
            _____________________    ____________

            Cir.  1992)  (citing  Pennhurst   State  Sch.  and  Hosp.  v.
                                  ___________________________________

            Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984)).
            _________

                      Court  Access.   DuPont  complains that  defendants
                      _____________

            violated his right to court access by restricting his ability

            to  conduct legal  research3 and  by seizing  legal materials
                                       3

            from his cell.  DuPont has clearly been able to challenge his

            criminal conviction  and sentence  by filing a  direct appeal

            and post-conviction motions in state court and  by filing two

            habeas petitions (and appeals  from the dismissal thereof) in

            federal  court.  He has also been  able to file and prosecute

            this action  challenging the  conditions of  his confinement.

            Nothing in the  record indicates that DuPont's  access to the

            courts has not been adequate or meaningful.  Consequently, he

                                
            ____________________

               3According  to  DuPont,  he  may not  physically  use  the
               3
            prison's law libraries, but  must submit written requests for
            xeroxed copies  of legal  materials and give  exact citations
            for such materials, and he has no access to softcover advance
            sheets.

                                         -4-

            has  not  suffered the  "actual  injury" required  to  show a

            violation of his right to meaningful court access.  See Lewis
                                                                ___ _____

            v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180-82 (1996).
               _____

                      Liberty Interests.  DuPont asserts that  defendants
                      _________________

            have violated his due process liberty interest in law library

            access and in not being confined in  the DDU by their failure

            to  comply with obligations imposed in the cases cited in the

            beginning  of  this opinion.    Contrary  to DuPont's  claim,

            however,  the  Alston  case  did not  require  defendants  to
                           ______

            prepare and  evaluate a  health status report  before placing

            him in  the DDU, which is located at Cedar Junction as is the

            DSU  where he  was previously  housed.   Alston requires  the
                                                     ______

            preparation and  review of health status  reports only before

            an   inmate  is   transferred   to   an  entirely   different

            institution.   Likewise, Stone does not  clearly grant DuPont
                                     _____

            the  right  to physically  use the  prison  law library.   It

            requires that all inmates have  supervised access to the  law

            library  unless  "special  circumstances" dictate  otherwise.

            Such circumstances may well encompass DuPont's confinement in

            the DDU.  

                      DuPont v.  Fair and the Hoffer  and Cepulonis cases
                      ______     ____         ______      _________

            relate  only to inmates in  the DSU, but  DuPont alleges that
                                            ___

            they  apply  because the  DDU  is  really a  pretextual  DSU.

            DuPont's arguments  on this point  are not  persuasive.   The

            affidavit by  defendant DOC  Commissioner Dubois to  which he

                                         -5-

            points affirmed that the DDU is distinct from the  DSU in its
                   ________              __

            disciplinary purpose.   The  list of comparisons  between the

            DSU  and DDU  which DuPont  submitted to  the district  court

            actually  describes significant  differences between  the two

            units.  Finally, while the  DDU may have effectively replaced

            the DSU at Cedar Junction, Commissioner Dubois testified in a

            deposition in a different case (which is in the record before

            us) that he did not establish the DDU in order to evade legal

            obligations applicable to the DSU.  

                      In  his  objections  to  the  magistrate's  report,

            DuPont raised an argument  based on Sandin v. Conner,  115 S.
                                                ______    ______

            Ct.  2293 (1995), which had just then been decided, and which

            the district  court did not discuss in  its opinion accepting

            the  report   and  recommendation.     DuPont   asserts  that

            confinement  in  the  DDU  is  an  atypical  and  significant

            deprivation, giving him a  due process liberty interest under

            Sandin,  which defendants violated  when they put  him in the
            ______

            DDU.    The  present   record  does  not  contain  sufficient

            information to permit  evaluation of this  claim.4  For  that
                                                             4

            reason, a remand to consider the Sandin claim makes no sense.
                                             ______

            Accordingly,  we affirm the denials below on the basis of the

                                
            ____________________

               4We  note, too, that DuPont  has asked us  to send certain
               4
            materials on file  in this  court which are  relevant to  his
            Sandin claim to the district court, a request which we hereby
            ______
            grant.    The  materials  were  filed  in  connection with  a
            previous  appeal by DuPont in this case, but were never filed
            in the district court.

                                         -6-

            arguments originally presented to  the district court, but do

            so without  prejudice to  DuPont's right to  seek preliminary

            injunctive  relief anew  based  on Sandin.    We remind  him,
                                               ______

            however, that  the district court has directed  him to comply

            fully  with Loc.  R.  7.1 in  filing  motions and  supporting

            memoranda  in  that  court,  and that  district  courts  "are

            entitled to  demand adherence to specific  mandates contained

            in  the [local]  rules."    See  Air  Line  Pilots  Ass'n  v.
                                        ___  ________________________

            Precision Valley Aviation, Inc.,  26 F.3d 220, 224 (1st  Cir.
            _______________________________

            1994).

                      Equal Protection.   On appeal,  DuPont asserts that
                      ________________

            the particular law library  access restrictions placed on him

            as a  DDU inmate violate his equal  protection rights because

            other inmates in "disciplinary segregation," i.e., inmates in

            the  "locked down max end  and segregation blocks  9 and 10,"

            have  greater library access.   This bare allegation does not

            establish  that  the  inmates   he  refers  to  are  situated

            similarly  enough  to  DDU  inmates to  require  similar  law

            library rights.  See  Hosna v. Groose, 80  F.3d 298, 304  n.8
                             ___  _____    ______

            (8th  Cir.)  (the  district  court should  not  presume  that

            inmates   in  administrative   segregation   for  their   own

            protection are necessarily similarly situated with protective

            custodyinmates), cert.denied,1996 WL375894(U.S. Oct.7,1996).5
                                                                        5
                             ___________

                                
            ____________________

               5On appeal,  DuPont asserts  a new claim  that defendants'
               5
            failure  to  provide DDU  inmates  with  the 90-day  periodic
            review and  early release options given  DSU inmates violates

                                         -7-

                      Mail  Rights  While  in   Strip  Cell.    On  three
                      _____________________________________

            occasions  in 1994, defendants put DuPont in a strip cell for

            periods ranging from  four to eleven days,  during which time

            DuPont's incoming mail was allegedly withheld and he was also

            denied  writing materials.   We  evaluate the  withholding of

            incoming mail under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987),
                                ______    ______

            see Thornburgh v. Abbott,  490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989),  and the
            ___ __________    ______

            restriction  on outgoing  mail (i.e.,  the denial  of writing

            materials) under Procunier v.  Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).
                             _________     ________

            Because  the withholding  of mail  was reasonably  related to

            legitimate  penological  interests  and  the  restriction  on

            outgoing mail  furthered a substantial  governmental interest

            unrelated to the suppression of expression and was no greater

            than necessary, we find  no constitutional violation.  DuPont

            was placed in a strip cell due to  intransigence sufficiently

            serious  to require the use  of chemical agents.  Restricting

            his  mail  privileges helped  the  state  maintain order  and

            security in the DDU  by ensuring that unpleasant consequences

            flowed from such misbehavior.   See, e.g., Little  v. Norris,
                                            ___  ____  ______     ______

            787 F.2d  1241,  1243-44 (8th  Cir.  1986) ("The  purpose  of

            withholding  personal  mail  is to  make  punitive  isolation

            unpleasant,  and thereby  discourage  improper  behavior  and

                                
            ____________________

            his equal  protection rights.   As noted above,  DuPont's own
            list  comparing  the  DSU and  DDU  suggests  that there  are
            significant differences between the two units.  Since DSU and
            DDU inmates do not  seem to be similarly situated,  his claim
            seems unlikely to be successful.

                                         -8-

            promote  security within  the prison.").   Given  the limited

            privileges of  DDU inmates, which must  be earned, defendants

            may have had few other alternatives for inducing persistently

            disobedient  inmates like  DuPont to  behave.   Moreover, the

            withdrawal  of mail  privileges  was temporary.   DuPont  was

            given  his mail and permitted to  write letters after leaving

            the strip cell.  His confinement was also relatively short in

            duration, lasting  11  days or  less.   The  restriction  was

            content  neutral,  applying  to  all  incoming  and  outgoing

            correspondence.  DuPont was permitted attorney visits and his

            attorney could keep him informed about pending cases.  He has

            not asserted  the actual loss  of any cause of  action due to
                                     ____

            his inability to write letters or draft legal documents while

            confined in the strip cell.

                      Incoming  Stamps.   Defendants have  removed stamps
                      ________________

            from DuPont's  incoming mail,  citing a DDU  rule prohibiting

            the receipt  of  stamps through  the mail  and requiring  DDU

            inmates  to buy stamps at  the prison canteen.   DuPont avers

            that he did not  have enough money in  his prison account  to

            buy  stamps.  But his  correspondents who desire  to send him

            stamps  may  donate funds  to  his  prison account  for  that

            purpose, instead.   See 103 Code  Mass. Regs.   405.16.   The
                                ___

            prison also provides some free  postage for personal mail and

            unlimited postage  for necessary mail to  court officials and

            attorneys.  Id.    481.10.  Under the circumstances,  we find
                        ___

                                         -9-

            no constitutional  violation.   See Kaestel v.  Lockhart, 746
                                            ___ _______     ________

            F.2d  1323, 1325 (8th  Cir. 1984) (per  curiam) (prison could

            prohibit the  receipt of postal stamps  through incoming mail

            in order to  prevent inmates from  using them as a  source of

            currency outside their regular prison accounts; inmates could

            obtain  pre-stamped envelopes  from the  commissary and  some

            funds  were  available  for  postage  for  indigent  inmates)

            (applying Procunier standard); accord Pacheco v. Comisse, 897
                      _________            ______ _______    _______

            F. Supp. 671, 682 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (applying Turner standard).
                                                        ______

                      Seizures of Legal Materials.  DuPont   objects   to
                      ___________________________

            defendants'   seizure  of  legal  materials  from  his  cell.

            Contrary to his assertions, however, the settlement agreement

            in DuPont v. Hall, supra, did not give him the  right to keep
               ______    ____  _____

            12 cubic feet of legal materials in his DDU cell or the right

            to  select  materials  to  keep  in  his  cell before  excess
                                                           ______

            materials  were removed and placed  in storage.  The prison's

            property limit regulation expressly  permitted him to keep no

            more than 1 cubic  foot of legal  materials in his cell,  see
                                                                      ___

            103 Code Mass. Regs.   403.09, and so defendants could remove

            materials exceeding  that limit.  The  regulation in question

            is not  arbitrary or unreasonable simply  because the federal

            prison  system has a more generous property limit.  See Savko
                                                                ___ _____

            v. Rollins, 749 F.  Supp. 1403, 1407-8 (D. Md.  1990), aff'd,
               _______                                             _____

            924 F.2d 1053 (4th Cir. 1991) (table).   Finally, defendants'

                                         -10-

            seizures of his excess  materials have not caused  any actual

            injury to his right of court access, as is indicated above.6
                                                                       6

                      Excessive Force.    DuPont   seeks  an   injunction
                      _______________

            against  defendants'  use of  chemical  agents when  removing

            excess legal materials from his cell, alleging that they have

            used  excessive  force and  chemical  agents  against him  on

            multiple  occasions from 1991 to  1994.  The record indicates

            that chemical agents and/or forced move teams  have been used

            against DuPont some 14 times in that time period after he has

            refused to obey orders or rules.  He may be  able to convince

            a  jury that excessive force was used against him on February

            14,  1994, as he asserts,  but that injury  could be remedied

            through a damages award.   See Cohen, supra, 991 F.2d  at 902
                                       ___ _____  _____

            (the  availability of  adequate damages  may justify  denying

            preliminary  injunctive  relief).  On practically  all  other

            occasions when chemical agents  were used against him, DuPont

            reported no injuries and medical personnel observed none.  On

            a few occasions, he  reported old or minor injuries.   Prison

            officials  sought medical authorization before using chemical

            agents  on DuPont  and his  eyes and  face were  washed after

            their use.  We conclude,  therefore, that defendants have not

                                
            ____________________

               6DuPont also  sought  the return  of particular  materials
               6
            removed from his cell in July 1994.  He may review his stored
            materials  to  obtain  the  particular  documents  he  wants,
            however, but has declined to do so.

                                         -11-

            systematically   used  excessive  force  or  improperly  used

            chemical agentsso asto justify preliminaryinjunctive relief.7
                                                                        7

                      Use  of  Strip  Cells.   DuPont  alleges  that  the
                      _____________________

            conditions  in the  strip cell in  which he  was occasionally

            confined  in  1994  violated  the  Eighth  Amendment.    Even

            assuming that  the conditions he describes  were sufficiently

            serious deprivations to establish a constitutional violation,

            DuPont  has  not  shown  facts  to  indicate that  any  named

            defendant knew  of and disregarded  an excessive risk  to his

            safety.  Thus,  he has  not shown  the requisite  "deliberate

            indifference"  to warrant  any relief,  at  this time,  on an

            Eighth  Amendment claim.  See  Farmer v. Brennan,  114 S. Ct.
                                      ___  ______    _______

            1970, 1977 (1994); Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 446-47 (8th
                               ________    ____

            Cir. 1995)  (denying injunctive relief to  an inmate confined

            in  a  strip cell  since  he had  not  shown  that any  named

            defendant had known  of and disregarded any excessive risk to

                                
            ____________________

               7On appeal, DuPont objects to the district court's refusal
               7
            to  compel discovery to permit him to identify the guards who
            allegedly used  excessive force  against him.   We  note that
            discovery orders are not  generally appealable prior to entry
            of  final  judgment.    See  9  Moore's  Federal  Practice   
                                    ___     __________________________
            110.13[2],  at 132 (2d ed. 1996). In addition, our affirmance
            does  not rest on the  ground that DuPont  failed to identify
            the guards in question, although that reason was cited by the
            district  court  in  denying  preliminary  injunctive relief.
            Therefore,  we  decline  to  consider  the  district  court's
            failure to  compel discovery  in this  appeal.   See  Coastal
                                                             ___  _______
            Fuels of Puerto  Rico v. Caribbean Petroleum  Corp., 990 F.2d
            _____________________    __________________________
            25, 28 (1st Cir. 1993) (declining to review the lower court's
            decision  on an  issue  on which  the  denial of  preliminary
            injunctive relief did  not depend where the decision  was not
            immediately appealable).

                                         -12-

            his  health  or  safety).   DuPont  filed  a grievance  about

            conditions  in the  strip  cell with  defendant DDU  Director

            Harrington, but  not until after  his release from  the strip
                                       _____

            cell.     

                      Transfer of Materials to District Court.  We hereby
                      _______________________________________

            grant  DuPont's request  that we  send certain  First Circuit

            materials to the district court.

                      Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant's right to
                      ___________________________________________________

            raise a  new claim for  preliminary injunctive relief  in the
            _____________________________________________________________

            district court based  on Sandin  v. Conner, 115  S. Ct.  2293
            _____________________________________________________________

            (1995).  The  clerk of this court is hereby  directed to send
            _____________________________________________________________

            to  the district  court the  materials filed  in No.  93-2119
            _____________________________________________________________

            which  are identified by appellant in his appellate brief.
            __________________________________________________________

                                         -13-