Stow v. State Prison

USCA1 Opinion

          October 6, 1993       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 92-2231

                                   WESTON J. STOW,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Weston J. Stow on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Jeffrey  R. Howard,  Attorney General,  and William  C.  McCallum,
            __________________                          _____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






















                      Per Curiam.   Asserting that "effective  meaningful
                      __________

            legal  research often  requires browsing  through as  many as

            thirty different lawbooks  a day," and having  been unable to

            proceed at such a  pace (at least when the  volumes plaintiff

            wished to consult were in the main library rather than in the

            satellite library),  plaintiff filed the present  action.  We

            conclude that plaintiff's action was properly dismissed under

            28 U.S.C.   1915(d).

                      The   deficiencies   plaintiff  described   in  the

            satellite library plus the  limitation to two photocopy cases

            per request from the main library  may slow the pace of legal

            research, but do not rise to the level of an unconstitutional

            denial of access to the courts.  Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d
                                             ________    ______

            589, 606 (7th Cir.  1986); Campbell v. Miller, 787  F.2d 217,
                                       ________    ______

            225-30  (7th  Cir.),  cert.  denied,  479  U.S.  1019  (1986)
                                  _____________

            (prisoner limited to  two books at a  time, for which  he may

            wait twenty-four hours to one week to obtain).  Plaintiff has

            misjudged the standard  by which the  constitutional adequacy

            of  the  legal  resources  are measured.    The  deficiencies

            plaintiff identified may prevent plaintiff from preparing the

            honed brief of a lawyer, but  such is not required from a pro

            se, whose filings are  liberally construed.  The deficiencies

            complained of  would  not prevent  plaintiff from  adequately

            communicating  with the  courts,  and plaintiff's  conclusory

            assertion that  he lost  a case  because of the  deficiencies



















            adds  nothing.    Nor  was  the  state  required  to  provide

            plaintiff with  assistance from  someone trained in  the law.

            Cepulonis  v. Fair,  732 F.2d  1, 6  (1st Cir.  1984) (inmate
            _________     ____

            entitled to  adequate law library or  assistance from persons

            trained in the law, not both).

                      Plaintiff also asks this  court to order the warden

            of  the Massachusetts  prison  where  plaintiff is  currently

            housed to pay  the postage  for plaintiff's legal  mail.   We

            deny plaintiff's motion.   The Massachusetts warden is not  a

            party to  this action.   Furthermore, while  plaintiff claims

            that he has no funds in his prison account, he has not stated

            that  the   warden  has   refused  to  provide   postage  for

            appellant's legal mail.   See Bounds v. Smith, 430  U.S. 817,
                                      ___ ______    _____

            824-25 (1977) ("It is indisputable that indigent inmates must

            be  provided at  state expense  with paper  and pen  to draft

            legal  documents  and with  stamps to  mail  them").   In any

            event, any challenge to the prison's mailing practices should

            be brought in the district court.

                      We have considered  all of plaintiff's  allegations

            and arguments and find them to be without merit.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________











                                         -3-