-
USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-1823
RICHARD A. STREET,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
GEORGE A. VOSE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
R. A. Street on brief pro se.
____________
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
____________________
Michael H. Cohen, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for
_________________
appellees.
____________________
May 12, 1993
____________________
Per Curiam. In a prior appeal in this case, we
__________
vacated the dismissal of appellant's complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because it had entered without providing the
plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to oppose or amend.
Street v. Vose, No. 90-1415, slip op. (1st Cir. Mar. 6,
______ ____
1991). This appeal challenges the entry of summary judgment
in favor of the defendants. We affirm.
I
I
_
The appellant, a Massachusetts inmate, sued various
correction officials and officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983
alleging that he was denied constitutionally adequate access
to the courts while confined in the segregation unit of the
Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction
(MCI-CJ).1 After remand, the defendants moved to dismiss,
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Appellant's
opposition, like the defendants' motion, was supported by
documentary evidence, and the district court properly treated
the motion as one for summary judgment.
Plaintiff's chief contention is that he was
repeatedly denied access to the separate satellite library
provided for segregated inmates, and access to other library
____________________
1. The appellant was housed in this unit for approximately
six months on "awaiting action" status before being
officially classified to the unit in December 1989.
Plaintiff's allegations cover the entire period, and although
both parties make much of the import of these distinctions in
status, for purposes of this discussion, we do not find the
differences of any material relevance.
-2-
materials from the prison's main library, in violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the terms of a
Stipulation of Dismissal (Stipulation) in another case,
Cepulonis v. Fair, No. 78-3233-Z (D. Mass. Jun. 24, 1987).
_________ ____
The Stipulation set forth, inter alia, detailed procedures
_____ ____
regarding segregated inmates' use of the satellite library
and legal materials at MCI-CJ.2 On appeal, appellant has
not pursued any argument with respect to his third cause of
action, which appears to assert state-created rights arguably
inherent in the Stipulation, and, accordingly, that issue has
been waived.
____________________
2. As to specific claims that fall within the scope of the
Stipulation, Street alleges that: between December 1988, when
he was formally classified to the segregation unit, and March
1990, he filed 51 requests to use the satellite law library,
but was given timely access only 10 times and otherwise had
to wait up to two weeks before being given access; routinely,
no justification or reason was given as to why timely access
could not be provided; requests were not collected daily, as
required; some written requests were refused or not
processed; volumes and equipment in the library were not
maintained, and the library facility and hours were
insufficient partly because other inmates who were not
classified to the segregation unit, but were housed there,
were allowed to use the satellite law library, thus
effectively denying access to those for whom the satellite
library was intended. Street also contends that of ten
requests for materials from the main library, three were not
processed, and, as to the rest, only a small portion of the
requested materials were received. Of two requests for legal
assistance, one was granted late, and the other was denied.
Finally, copying requests were denied, and necessary books
were unavailable. There are other claims beyond the
Stipulation: that his legal papers were "ransacked" and
stolen, and that favored inmates are allowed frequent use of
the satellite library.
-3-
II
II
__
As we observed in our prior ruling, it is
undisputed that inmates seeking release or otherwise
contesting the constitutionality of the conditions of their
confinement possess a right of access to the courts, that is,
the right to "adequate law libraries or adequate assistance
from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
______ _____
817, 821, 827-28 (1977) (upholding state access-to-the-courts
plan under which, inter alia, inmates not facing court
_____ ____
deadlines might have a month's wait for a library visit).
However, such access is subject to reasonable restrictions:
meaningful access means no more than that the state must
assure an indigent inmate "an adequate opportunity to present
his claims fairly." Id. at 823 (quoting Ross v. Moffitt, 417
___ ____ _______
U.S. 600, 615-16 (1974)). The relevant inquiry is whether an
inmate has been afforded "a reasonably adequate opportunity
to present claimed violations of fundamental rights to the
courts." Id. at 825 (emphasis added).
______ ___
Moreover, virtually all circuit courts have read an
injury element into less than total access-denial claims and
required prisoners to shoulder an initial burden of showing
that the deprivation caused some quantum of prejudice with
respect to pending or contemplated litigation. See Strickler
___ _________
v. Waters, ___ F.2d ___, ___ & n.10, 1993 WL 86457, *4, *11,
______
No. 92-6147 (4th Cir. Mar. 26, 1993) (collecting cases). We
-4-
held as much in Sowell v. Vose, 941 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir.
______ ____
1991): Where a prisoner has not been denied complete access
to legal materials, but alleges only restrictions on such
access, "actual injury [is] a prerequisite to recovery."
Thus, unless the deprivation clearly amounts to an absolute,
inherently prejudicial restriction on access (clearly not the
case here), in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment,
"actual injury", i.e., an adverse effect on litigation caused
by the challenged conduct must be sufficiently alleged by the
plaintiff. See id. at 34-35; see also Shango v. Jurich, 965
___ ___ ___ ____ ______ ______
F.2d 289, 292 (7th Cir. 1992); Crawford-El v. Britton, 951
___________ _______
F.2d 1314, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 62
_____ ______
(1992). To that end, an affidavit opposing summary judgment
must demonstrate with specifics, and not speculation, how the
challenged conduct caused legal harm. Sowell, 941 F.2d at
______
35-36.
III
III
___
Sowell was decided after our prior ruling in this
______
case and before defendants' summary judgment motion was
filed. In its accompanying memoranda, however, the
defendants pointed out, citing Sowell, that plaintiff's
______
complaint had failed to allege that any of the purported
restrictions had prejudiced him in his ability to pursue
this, or any other, lawsuit. The motion was supported by the
affidavit of MCI-CJ Superintendent Duval who attested that,
-5-
since being housed in the segregation unit, the plaintiff
"has used, and continues to use the satellite law library."
Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition stated that
his failure to allege actual prejudice was due to his lack of
legal training and the defendants' restriction on access. He
contended that prejudice was demonstrated by the dismissal of
another named action in February 1990.3 Alternatively,
plaintiff argued that he did not need to show actual
prejudice because the Cepulonis Stipulation controlled
_________
access-denial claims by segregation unit inmates at MCI-CJ
and expressly reserved to inmates the right to bring an
action for damages. Supporting plaintiff's memorandum were
the Stipulation and the affidavits of the plaintiff and seven
other segregation unit inmates each attesting, in identical
fashion, to numerous violations of the Stipulation.4
These profferings by the plaintiff fail to
demonstrate a genuine issue as to actual injury. Appellant,
who is an experienced pro se litigator, does not claim any
___ __
____________________
3. However, when the opposition was filed, plaintiff knew
that that dismissal had been vacated and the case remanded.
Street v. Maloney, No. 90-1280, slip op. (1st Cir. Dec. 29,
______ _______
1990).
4. Included were: routine delays of 4-8 days in receiving
access to the satellite library; missing books and torn and
missing pages in many volumes; out-of-date supplements and
pocket parts; delays of several weeks in receiving books from
the main library; typewriter and copier frequently broken;
lack of paper and other supplies.
-6-
delay or interruption in this or any other pending case; he
cites no court-imposed deadlines that he has missed, or that
he has been unable to pursue any legal claim as a result of
any of the alleged deprivations. See Shango, 965 F.2d at
___ ______
293. At most, he has described some delay in receiving
access to library materials. Such temporary restrictions on
access, bereft of indications of adverse legal consequence,
do not implicate a Bounds right. Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d
______ ________ _____
1057, 1063 (11th Cir. 1991). Further, appellant has
presented well-drafted pleadings to this court, as well as
the district court, demonstrating that he has retained the
ability to "participate meaningfully in the legal process."
Sowell, 941 F.2d at 35. While it is true that the plaintiff
______
did point to one adverse judgment, it was later vacated, see
___
ante n.3, and we can find nothing in the record indicating a
____
prejudicial "causal relationship" between that dismissal, or
any of the alleged deprivations, for that matter, and the
conduct of the defendants. Id.; see also Crawford-El, 951
___ ___ ____ ___________
F.2d at 1321; Chandler, 926 F.2d at 1062.5
________
IV
IV
__
The Stipulation itself, however, does not, as
appellant appears to contend, afford an independent basis of
____________________
5. Because we decide that the plaintiff has failed to meet
the initial burden to show prejudice, we need not address the
degree to which any restrictions on access to legal materials
are related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v.
______
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
______
-7-
relief from asserted violations of the right of access to the
courts. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122-23 (5th
___ _____ ________
Cir. 1986). The Cepulonis litigation that ultimately spawned
_________
the Stipulation at issue here was a class action initiated by
segregation unit inmates at MCI-CJ (then MCI-Walpole) to
vindicate Bounds rights. See Cepulonis v. Fair, 732 F.2d 1,
______ ___ _________ ____
2 (1st Cir. 1984). And while the Stipulation states that its
procedures provide "adequate access to the courts," we have
not had occasion to decide whether the terms of the
Stipulation are constitutionally required, and offer no
opinion in that regard. Even assuming that the provisions of
the Stipulation were intended to meet no more than minimal
constitutional requirements regarding segregated inmate
access to the courts, we would still find the grant of
summary judgment to the defendants proper: The evidence
offered by the plaintiff concerning any violations of the
Stipulation suffers from the same infirmity described in our
discussion above - - - the failure to demonstrate a
sufficient quantum of prejudice to permit the case to proceed
further.6
____________________
6. To the extent that the plaintiff simply seeks to enforce
the Stipulation, he may not do so directly under 1983.
DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 534 (8th Cir. 1990); Green,
_______ ____ _____
788 F.2d at 1123; cf. Welch v. Spangler, 939 F.2d 570, 572
___ _____ ________
n.2 (8th Cir. 1991) (district court proceeding included both
1983 and contempt actions). The district court that
approved the Cepulonis Stipulation inherently retains
_________
jurisdiction to enforce its own consent decree, see In re
___ _____
Donald Pearson, ___ F.2d ___, ___ No. 92-2158, slip op. at 9
______________
-8-
Thus, because the record presents no material
factual dispute that the appellant, while housed in the
segregation unit during the times in question, was denied
meaningful access to the courts, the defendants' motion for
summary judgment was properly granted.
V
V
_
We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial
of the plaintiff's motion for the district judge's recusal.
Merely issuing unfavorable rulings, Lisa v. Fournier Marine
____ ________________
Corp., 866 F.2d 530, 532 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
_____ _____ ______
819 (1989), or taking other judicial action during the course
of proceedings cannot form the basis of a disqualification
claim absent a showing of personal bias, United States v.
______________
Chantal, 902 F.2d 1018, 1022-23 & n.9 (1st Cir. 1990), an
_______
assertion not made here. Nor was district court's refusal to
grant a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff an abuse
of discretion. See Gulley v. Orr, 905 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th
___ ______ ___
Cir. 1990) (absent a showing of prejudice, there is a strong
preference for a disposition on the merits); Richman v.
_______
General Motors Corp., 437 F.2d 196, 199 (1st Cir. 1977).
_____________________
Finally, appellant complains that he was excluded from two
status conferences. While such ex parte proceedings are
__ _____
____________________
(1st Cir. Mar. 16, 1993), and parties with standing to do so
may seek compliance in that court. See, e.g., Consumer
___ ____ ________
Advisory Bd. v. Glover, ___ F.2d ____, ___, No. 92-1550, slip
____________ ______
op. at 3-4 (1st Cir, Mar. 31, 1993).
-9-
disfavored, see Oses v. Massachusetts, 961 F.2d 985, 986 (1st
___ ____ _____________
Cir. 1992); In re Donald Pearson, ___ F.2d ___, ___ No. 92-
____________________
2158, slip op. at 16 (1st Cir. Mar. 16, 1993), the ex parte
__ _____
contacts here caused no perceivable harm. See id. slip op.
___ ___
at 17; Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 719 (1st Cir.), cert.
______ _______ _____
denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976).
______
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
________
-10-
Document Info
Docket Number： 92-1823
Filed Date： 5/12/1993
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015