Steeves v. Commissioner ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

        December 11, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________







        No. 95-1676





                               RICHARD EDWARD STEEVES,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                MAINE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Richard Edward Steeves on brief pro se.
______________________

            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General, and  Diane  Sleek, Assistant
________________                           ____________

        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________













































                 Per Curiam.  Appellant Richard Steeves, a Maine prisoner
__________



            now incarcerated  in Minnesota, appeals the  grant of summary



            judgment to  defendant officials  of the Maine  Department of



            Corrections  on  Steeves' claim  that  defendants denied  him



            constitutionally adequate access to Maine courts.  We affirm.



                 According to  the record, defendants offered  to provide



            Steeves with  an attorney through Pine  Tree Legal Assistance



            to assist him in  his post conviction proceedings.   In order



            to take  advantage of  this offer,  Steeves  was directed  to



            write  to  the  Chief Advocate  of  the  Maine Department  of



            Corrections.   Instead  of following this  procedure, Steeves



            contacted Pine  Tree Legal Assistance directly and apparently



            sought  legal   assistance  not   for  his   post  conviction



            proceeding  but for obtaining a  transfer back to  Maine.  He



            was  informed by Pine Tree  Legal Assistance that  it did not



            generally handle prison transfer cases.



                 The fact that Steeves' failed  in his attempt to  obtain



            legal assistance  directly from  Pine  Tree Legal  Assistance



            does  not  indicate  that  such assistance  would  have  been



            refused if  Steeves had applied through  the proper channels.



            Steeves  has therefore  failed to  produce any  evidence that



            defendants' offer  to provide  him with legal  assistance was



            not genuine.



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___











                                         -2-