USCA1 Opinion
December 15, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1405
ERICO DAVIAS, a/k/a ERIC E. DAVIS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
No. 93-1424
ERICO DAVIAS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CLEVELAND, WATERS AND BASS, P.A.,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Erico Davias, a/k/a Eric Davis, on briefs pro se.
______________________________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General of New Hampshire, and Stephen
__________________ _______
J. Judge, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees,
_________
State of New Hampshire and Judd Gregg.
Wayne C. Beyer and Richard C. Dale, II on Memorandum in Support
_______________ ____________________
of Motion for Summary Affirmance, for appellee, Cleveland, Waters and
Bass, P.A.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgments in both of these
__________
consolidated appeals. In No. 93-1405, we do so substantially
for the reasons articulated by the district court in its
comprehensive trio of decisions. We add only that, even if
plaintiff had a right under Louisiana law to appeal from the
extradition order, see, e.g., State v. Hegwood, 510 So. 2d 380
___ ____ _____ _______
(La. 1987); State v. Morales, 478 So. 2d 943 (La. App. 1985),
_____ _______
plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the New Hampshire
state defendants were in any way involved with, or otherwise
accountable for, any abridgement of that right. See
___
generally McBride v. Soos, 679 F.2d 1223, 1227 (7th Cir.
_________ _______ ____
1982) ("It is unreasonable to require the demanding state
agents to be familiar with the procedural safeguards enacted
in the asylum state's extradition statutes and then further
require them to ensure that the statutory safeguards have
been followed.").
In No. 93-1424, we need not decide whether defendant, a
private law firm, can be said to have acted under color of
state law. It suffices to conclude, as explained by the
Magistrate-Judge in his Report and Recommendation, that
defendant in any event was under no constitutional obligation
to affix a legend to the mail it sent to plaintiff
designating such correspondence as "legal and confidential."
Plaintiff's dispute is not with defendant but rather with the
New Hampshire prison regulations that govern the opening and
reading of mail received by inmates. Because the law in this
area is unsettled,1 our affirmance is without prejudice to
plaintiff filing a separate action against appropriate prison
officials challenging such regulations.
The judgments are affirmed.
___________________________
____________________
1. See generally, e.g., Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th
_____________ ____ ______ _________
Cir. 1993); Castillo v. Cook County Mail Room Dep't, 990 F.2d
________ ___________________________
304 (7th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d
____ _______
996, 1012 (6th Cir. 1992); Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351
________ _______
(5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2974
____________
(1992); United States v. Stotts, 925 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1991);
_____________ ______
Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76 (7th Cir. 1987).
______ ______
-4-
