Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gallant v. Delahanty, 94-1733 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1733 Visitors: 31
Filed: Dec. 14, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: December 14, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1733 ALFRED A. GALLANT, II, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. THOMAS DELAHANTY, II, JUDGE, ET AL. See McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, ___ ________ ____ (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion









December 14, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 94-1733

ALFRED A. GALLANT, II,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THOMAS DELAHANTY, II, JUDGE, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Alfred A. Gallant, Jr. on brief pro se. ______________________



____________________


____________________



















Per Curiam. A magistrate judge recommended that __________

plaintiff's vague, verbose, and partially illegible civil

rights complaint be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

1915(d) because the allegations were "fanciful" and directed

at acts perpetrated by private individuals, rather than state

actors. The district court adopted the report and dismissed

the complaint.

We agree that much of plaintiff's complaint was

properly dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d)

because the legal theory underlying the claims was

indisputably meritless. The claims properly dismissed

included the following: 1) plaintiff's complaint that police

had failed to investigate crimes, see Sattler v. Johnson, 857 ___ _______ _______

F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988) (victims have no constitutional

right to have defendants criminally prosecuted); Slagel v. ______

Shell Oil Refinery, 811 F. Supp. 378, 382 (C.D. Ill. 1993) ___________________

(police officer had no constitutional duty to conduct

investigation of plaintiff's assault charge), aff'd, 23 F.3d _____

410 (7th Cir. 1994), or protect plaintiff prior to his

incarceration, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social ________ _________________________________

Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989); 2) allegations concerning pre- ________

incarceration stalkings and harassment, Yancey v. Carroll ______ _______

County, 876 F.2d 1238, 1245 (6th Cir. 1989) (investigation, ______

without more, is not a constitutional violation);

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335, 1337 (3d ___________________________ ____

















Cir. 1975); Hickombottom v. Chicago, 739 F.Supp 1173, 1178 ____________ _______

(N.D. Ill. 1990) (police surveillance of apartment did not

violate the Fourth Amendment as plaintiff had no reasonable

expectation of privacy in his comings and goings); 3) denial

of workers' compensation benefits; 4) unconstitutional

conviction, Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994); 5) four- ____ ________

day denial of an attorney, United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. _____________ _______

180, 187 (1984); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-89 _____ ________

(1972); 6) deprivation of property without due process,

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Daniels v. ______ ______ _______

Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); electronic surveillance while ________

in prison, United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 22-23 _____________ __________

(2d Cir. 1988) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in

conversation conducted in a public area of a jail), cert. _____

denied, 488 U.S. 1033 (1989); United States v. Harrelson, 754 ______ _____________ _________

F.2d 1153, 1169-71 (5th Cir. 1985) (prisoner had no

reasonable expectation of privacy while conversing with his

wife in his cell), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 908, 1034 (1985); ____________

United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1344-46 (9th Cir. _____________ ______

1977) (monitoring and recording of prisoner-visitor

conversations was reasonable and therefore not violative of

the Fourth Amendment), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1000 (1978); _____________

and 7) ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel,

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987); Polk County v. ____________ ______ ___________

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981); Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th ______ ____ _____



-3-













Cir. 1976). In a similar view, the denial of access to

courts claim was subject to dismissal under 1915(d) because

the restrictions described (e.g., delay in access to legal ____

papers; rifling of papers; destruction of some papers; denial

of forms, paper clips, staples) were insufficiently

substantial.

Other allegations, however, although often lacking

enough detail to state constitutional claims which would

survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, were not premised

on indisputably meritless legal theories and conceivably

could be cured by more specific factual allegations. Four

potential claims fall into this area.

First, plaintiff outlined conceivable Eighth

Amendment violations. He claimed he had been assaulted and

terrorized by both guards and inmates while in prison and

denied medical attention and nutrition. See Farmer v. ___ ______

Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1920 (1994) (prison officials who _______

knowingly disregard substantial risk of serious harm to

inmates may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment);

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). While plaintiff's _______ ______

allegations are confusing and conclusory, enough was stated

to avoid a 1915(d) dismissal. Street v. Fair, 918 F.2d ______ ____

269, 272-73 (1st Cir. 1990).

Second, plaintiff complained that his mail was

tampered with, switched, and late and that legal mail was



-4-













opened. Depending on how the facts were fleshed out,

conceivably a constitutional claim could exist, if, for

example, incoming legal mail were opened with some regularity

outside plaintiff's presence. Castillo v. Cook County Mail ________ ________________

Room Dep't, 990 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1993) (reversing 1915(d) __________

dismissal of inmate complaint, which alleged that three

letters from public officials received in an eight-month

period had been opened, because a colorable constitutional

claim had been stated). This claim, too, should not have

been dismissed under 1915(d).

Third, plaintiff should be afforded a further

opportunity to articulate his complaints concerning placement

in segregation for refusal to work. On the present record,

we cannot tell whether plaintiff had any liberty interest in

remaining out of segregation, and, if so, whether he was

accorded due process before being deprived of it. Rodi v. ____

Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1991). __________

Fourth, plaintiff outlined some contours of a

possible First Amendment retaliatory transfer claim. He

asserted that shortly after he tried to communicate with the

governor, a newspaper, an attorney, and the federal district

court in March 1994, he was transferred to high maximum

security in retaliation. See McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 ___ ________ ____

(1st Cir. 1979) (prisoner who alleged that he had filed

actions against prison officials, that he was subsequently



-5-













transferred, and that the transfer was in retaliation for

litigation activities, stated a claim even though the

allegations were conclusory); Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d ________ _____

888, 891-92 (1st Cir. 1980) (retaliation claim stated by

allegations that officials denied plaintiff a transfer to

minimum security after plaintiff filed a suit complaining

about prison conditions). See also Mujahid v. Sumner, 807 ___ ____ _______ ______

F.Supp. 1505 (D.Hawaii 1992) (rule forbidding prisoners to

correspond with the media was facially unconstitutional),

aff'd, 996 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1993). Because plaintiff did _____

not state the subject of his communication, he may not have

satisfied even McDonald's lenient pleading standard, Leonardo __________ ________

v. Moran, 611 F.2d 397, 398 (1st Cir. 1979), but since _____

plaintiff may be able to fill in enough details to state a

claim, a sua sponte 1915(d) dismissal was not appropriate. ___ ______

We therefore remand for further proceedings. As a

result of this opinion, plaintiff is now on notice that in

order to state constitutional claims he may not rest on

vague, conclusory allegations, but must set factual

allegations respecting the material elements of his claims.

Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514-15 (1st Cir. ______ ________________

1988). Therefore, on remand, plaintiff should amend his

complaint.

Appellant's request for appellate counsel is

denied.



-6-













Vacated and remanded. ____________________



















































-7-






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