Tracy v. Kennebec Sheriff ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • 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    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-







Document Info

Docket Number: 94-1111

Filed Date: 9/12/1994

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015