Martineau v. Dubois ( 1993 )

USCA1 Opinion

          October 22, 1993      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1455

            


                                   HENRY MARTINEAU,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          LARRY DUBOIS AND JUDITH W.F. CYR,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Henry Martineau on brief pro se.
               _______________
               Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney  General, and
               __________________
          Stephen  G.  Dietrick,  Deputy  General  Counsel,  Department  of
          _____________________
          Correction, on brief for appellees.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________























                      Per  Curiam.   Plaintiff  brought  a  pro se  civil
                      ___________                           ___ __

            action under 42 U.S.C.    1983, alleging that during  a three

            week period  of incarceration at  Pondville Correction Center

            he  was  denied  access to  an  adequate  law  library.   The

            district court dismissed the complaint  under Fed. R. Civ. P.

            12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff's relocation to another

            site  mooted the  request for  equitable relief;  and  as for

            damages, the complaint did not  claim a total deprivation  of

            access to legal research  materials nor allege facts to  show

            any actual harm or  loss, as required by Sowell  v. Vose, 941
                                                     ______     ____

            F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1991).  Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we
                                                              __ ____

            agree  with   the  district   court's  analysis  and   affirm

            substantially  for the  reasons set  forth in  Judge Keeton's

            thorough memorandum and order of April 7, 1993.

                      Affirmed. 
                      ________























                                         -2-