Court Opinion

ID: 2964637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:41.064511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:58.816006
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2307

                                MICHAEL A. GUGLIELMO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Michael A. Guglielmo on brief pro se.
            ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                    April 25, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Upon  careful review  of the  record and
                 ___________

            appellant's  brief,  we perceive  no  error  in the  district

            court's dismissal  of this  case.   We reach  this conclusion

            essentially for the reasons  stated in the magistrate judge's

            report and recommendation dated August 26, 1996.  We add only

            these comments.

                 1.   The  constitutionality  of   the  "cost  of   care"

            reimbursement  provision,  N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.    622:53-58

            (Supp. 1995), is not fit  for review at this time and  better

            may be evaluated in the context of a live  case.  See Ernst &
                                                              ___ _______

            Young v.  Depositors Economic Protection Corp.,  45 F.3d 530,
            _____     ____________________________________

            538 (1st Cir. 1995) ("[The] claim lacks the needed dimensions

            of immediacy and reality.  The challenge is not rooted in the

            present,  but depends on a lengthy chain of speculation as to

            what the future has in store.").

                 2.   The   medical   co-payment   and   litigation   fee

            provisions,   N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.     622:31-a  & 623-B:1-3

            (Supp.  1995), are  alterations in  the prevailing  legal and

            administrative regime, rather than  increases in the  measure

            of  punishment.   Therefore, those  provisions are  not penal

            laws  violative of the Ex Post Facto clause, U.S. Const. art.

            1   10.  See California Department of Corrections v. Morales,
                     ___ ____________________________________    _______

            115 S.Ct. 1597, 1603  n.6 (1995); Dominique v. Weld,  73 F.3d
                                              _________    ____

            1156,  1163 (1st Cir. 1996);  Jones v. Murray,  962 F.2d 302,
                                          _____    ______

            309  (4th Cir.  1992)  ("It is  precisely because  reasonable

                                         -2-

            prison  regulations .  . .  are contemplated  as part  of the

            sentence  of  every prisoner,  that  they  do not  constitute

            additional  punishment  and are  not  classified  as ex  post

            facto.").    We are  unswayed  by  the distinction  appellant

            attempts to draw between "positive" laws and "regulations" or

            "policies."

                 3.   We   reject   appellant's   contention   that   the

            litigation fee provisions violate his right of  access to the

            courts.  See Lewis  v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174,  2180-82 (1996)
                     ___ _____     _____

            (to show a violation, the litigant  must show "actual injury"

            such  that an actionable claim  has been lost  or rejected or

            that presentation of the claim is currently being prevented);

            N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.    623-B:1(IV) ("Nothing in this section

            shall  prohibit  an inmate  from  filing  a civil  action  or

            proceeding if the inmate is indigent."). 

                 4.   We   decline  to  comment  further  on  appellant's

            undeveloped   arguments  that  the   medical  co-payment  and

            litigation fee provisions  violate double jeopardy  and equal

            protection.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-