Triplett v. Lehman
Case Date: 08/21/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1222
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1222 ERVIN TRIPLETT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JOSEPH LEHMAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Ervin Triplett on brief pro se. ______________ Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Diane Sleek and Peter J. ________________ ____________ ________ Brann, Assistant Attorney Generals, on brief for appellees. _____ ____________________ August 21, 1996 ____________________ Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Ervin Triplett appeals a __________ ___ __ district court order that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for injunctive relief from the alleged denial of his right of access to the courts. That complaint alleged that the defendant employees of the Maine Department of Corrections had violated that right by denying or ignoring plaintiff's requests for access to the prison law library at MCI-Warren.1 1 As it is undisputed that plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at MCI-Warren, we agree that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's 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); Keleghan v. Industrial Trust Co., 211 F.2d 134, ________ _____________________ 135 (per curiam). We decline to address plaintiff's claim that the defendants transferred him out of MCI-Warren in retaliation for filing this lawsuit. As plaintiff never clearly alleged that he was seeking damages for a retaliatory transfer and further failed to serve the defendants with notice of this claim, it is not properly before us. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ________ ____________________ 1Although we do not reach the issue in the present appeal, 1 we note that the plaintiff's complaint patently fails to state a viable claim under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lewis v. Casey, 64 U.S.L.W. 4587, 4589 (U.S. June _____ _____ 24, 1996)(holding that prisoner must show actual injury to establish violation of right of access to the courts). -2- |