Guzman-Rivera v. Metropolitan Det. ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1593





                                HECTOR GUZMAN-RIVERA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                   METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, GUAYNABO, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominquez, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Hector Guzman-Rivera on brief pro se.
____________________

            Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Lilliam Mendoza Toro,
_____________                              ____________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  November 12, 1997

                                 ____________________

































                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing  the record
__________



            and the briefs of  the parties, we affirm the judgment of the



            district  court for  essentially the  reasons  stated in  its



            Opinion  and Order,  dated  March  31, 1997.    We add  three



            comments.



                      First, most  of appellant's claims are moot because



            he either has received what he wanted or because he no longer



            is  subject  to  the conditions  about  which  he complained.



            Thus, these issues  no longer are "live."   See New Hampshire
___ _____________



            Right to Life  Political Action Comm. v. Gardner,  99 F.3d 8,
_____________________________________    _______



            17  (1st  Cir.  1996).    Second, the  negligent  loss  of  a



            prisoner's  property, such as  books, does not  implicate the



            due  process  clause  and  thus  is not  enough  to  state  a



            constitutional claim.   Daniels  v. Williams,  474 U.S.  327,
_______     ________



            328, 332 (1986);  Del Raine v. Williford, 32  F.3d 1024, 1043
_________    _________



            (7th Cir. 1994) ("[t]he most  that the record here  discloses



            with reference  to lost or taken books is possible negligence
________



            and that is not enough for a constitutional claim").



                      Finally, the  district  court  did  not  abuse  its



            discretion in  not appointing counsel to represent appellant.



            In  a civil  case, counsel is  required only  in "exceptional



            circumstances."   DesRosiers v. Moran,  949 F.2d 15,  23 (1st
__________    _____



            Cir. 1991).   Because this  case did not involve  any complex



            issues of law or fact, it did not present such circumstances.











                                         -2-



























                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
________   ___







































































































                                         -3-