Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Martineau v. Dubois, 93-1455 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1455 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 22, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: October 22, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 93-1455 HENRY MARTINEAU, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. LARRY DUBOIS AND JUDITH W.F. __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed.
USCA1 Opinion




October 22, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________


No. 93-1455




HENRY MARTINEAU,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

LARRY DUBOIS AND JUDITH W.F. CYR,

Defendants, Appellees.


__________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

___________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

___________________

Henry Martineau on brief pro se.
_______________
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
__________________
Stephen G. Dietrick, Deputy General Counsel, Department of
_____________________
Correction, on brief for appellees.



__________________

__________________























Per Curiam. Plaintiff brought a pro se civil
___________ ___ __

action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that during a three

week period of incarceration at Pondville Correction Center

he was denied access to an adequate law library. The

district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff's relocation to another

site mooted the request for equitable relief; and as for

damages, the complaint did not claim a total deprivation of

access to legal research materials nor allege facts to show

any actual harm or loss, as required by Sowell v. Vose, 941
______ ____

F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1991). Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we
__ ____

agree with the district court's analysis and affirm

substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Keeton's

thorough memorandum and order of April 7, 1993.

Affirmed.
________























-2-







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer