USCA1 Opinion
September 12, 1994
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
____________________
No. 93-2279
ERICO DAVIAS, A/K/A ERIC DAVIS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
No. 93-2290
ERICO DAVIAS,
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. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
__________________
Erico Davias on briefs pro se.
____________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The judgments are affirmed in both of these
__________
consolidated appeals. In No. 93-2279, plaintiff complains
that one or more employees in the prison mailroom opened a
piece of correspondence sent to him from federal district
court. Incorporated into his amended complaint is a response
to a grievance filed by plaintiff in connection with this
incident, in which the warden explained that the mail had
been opened by mistake. Based on this explanation, the
magistrate-judge found that plaintiff was complaining of
simple negligence on the part of defendant--a finding to
which plaintiff has not objected. It is well settled that
such an allegation fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
1983. See, e.g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328
___ ____ _______ ________
(1986) ("the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a
negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or
_________
injury to life, liberty, or property") (emphasis in
original); Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 11 (1st Cir. 1989).
_______ _____
In No. 93-2290, plaintiff challenges the procedures
surrounding his extradition from Louisiana to New Hampshire
in June 1991. The district court (adopting the
recommendations of the magistrate-judge) dismissed on res
judicata grounds, finding that plaintiff had brought a
similar challenge in a separate state-court suit. From the
record before us, we are unable to confirm that judgment has
issued in that proceeding. This is unimportant, however,
-3-
inasmuch as plaintiff's allegations here are identical to
those advanced in an earlier federal action that was the
subject of our decision in Davias v. New Hampshire, No. 93-
______ _____________
1405 (1st Cir. Dec. 15, 1993) (per curiam). Dismissal of the
instant action on res judicata grounds was thus plainly
warranted--if not on the basis of plaintiff's state suit--
then on the basis of his earlier federal proceeding.
The judgments are affirmed.
___________________________
-4-
