USCA1 Opinion
September 9, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1111
PATRICK TRACY and AEDAN MCCARTHY,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
KENNEBEC COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Patrick Tracy and Aedan McCarthy on brief pro se.
_____________ ______________
William R. Fisher and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel & Libby on brief
_________________ __________________________________
for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiffs Patrick Tracy and
__________
Aedan McCarthy appeal a district court judgment that
dismissed their 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint as frivolous within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). Both plaintiffs were
inmates at the Kennebec County Jail when they commenced this
action and their complaint named the Kennebec County Sheriff
as the sole defendant. The complaint alleged that the
plaintiffs were being denied their rights to meaningful
access to the courts because the law library at the Kennebec
County Jail was "totally inadequate." The plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the jail
to bring the law library up to the minimum standards set by
the American Association of Law Libraries.
By letter dated March 2, 1994, Tracy advised the
clerk of this court that he had been transferred from the
Kennebec County Jail to another jail. We have also been
advised that McCarthy now resides at the Maine State Prison
in Thomaston. As neither plaintiff is presently incarcerated
at the Kennebec County Jail, their claims for injunctive
relief are moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, the
_________
district court's judgment is vacated, and the case is
_______
remanded with directions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint
________
as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39-
___ _____________ ___________
40 (1950); Gomes v. Rhode Island Interscholastic League, 604
_____ ___________________________________
F.2d 733, 736 (1st Cir. 1979); Kelaghan v. Industrial Trust
________ ________________
Co., 211 F.2d 134, 135 (1st Cir. 1954)(per curiam).
___
It is so ordered.
________________
-3-
