Estrada v. Vose ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    January 20, 1994
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________


    No. 93-1508

    LUIS M. ESTRADA, JR.,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    GEORGE A. VOSE, JR.,

    Defendant, Appellee.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Luis M. Estrada, Jr. on brief pro se.
    ____________________
    Michael B. Grant, Senior Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department
    _________________
    of Corrections, on brief for appellee.


    ____________________


    ____________________




















    Per Curiam. Appellant Luis M. Estrada, Jr. filed a
    __________

    civil rights action in the Rhode Island district court. He

    is serving a sentence pursuant to a Rhode Island conviction

    and currently is incarcerated in the federal penitentiary in

    Terre Haute, Indiana. He raises two issues on appeal: (1)

    whether his constitutional right of access to the courts has

    been infringed due to his incarceration in Indiana; and (2)

    whether he has a constitutional right of access to his prison

    files to correct allegedly erroneous information placed there

    as a result of the investigation leading up to the transfer

    decision. Although the district court did not address these

    issues, the generality of the first claim and the speculative

    nature of the second make a remand unnecessary.

    We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
    ________

    Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank of Boston, 985 F.2d 1113, 1116
    _______ ___________________________

    (1st Cir. 1993). In so doing, we view the record in the

    light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging all

    reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Garside v. Osco
    _______ ____

    Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 1990). In relation to
    __________

    issues on which appellant bears the burden of proof, however,

    he is obligated to "reliably demonstrate that specific facts

    sufficient to create an authentic dispute exist." See id.
    ___ ___

    That is, he "must produce evidence which would be admissible

    at trial to make out the requisite issue of material fact."

    See Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355,357 (1st Cir. 1991).
    ___ _____ _____________



















    A. Access to Courts
    ________________

    It is "established beyond doubt that prisoners have

    a constitutional right of access to the courts." Bounds v.
    ______

    Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To meet this standard,
    _____

    prison authorities must "assist inmates in the preparation

    and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners

    with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from

    persons trained in the law." Id. at 828 (footnote omitted).
    ___

    Appellant has alleged the following facts in support of his

    assertion that prison officials have not met the requirements

    of Bounds.
    ______

    First, he states that the prison library in Indiana

    does not contain any sources of Rhode Island law and that

    there is no one at the prison familiar with Rhode Island law.

    This situation has impeded appellant in the prosecution of a

    state post-conviction review proceeding to reduce his

    sentence; he asserts that the matter currently is on appeal

    and that he has had to file a "pre-brief statement in the

    blind." Appellant has not submitted copies of any of the

    pleadings he has filed in the state courts nor does he refer

    to the titles or docket numbers of these alleged state court

    actions.

    The ACI official, Joseph DiNitto, who has been

    appointed to assist appellant with his legal needs wrote a

    letter to appellant. In it, he states that there are no



    -3-















    cases concerning appellant pending in the Rhode Island

    Supreme Court and only one case in the state Superior Court

    (in which no action had been taken for several months). In

    the letter, DiNitto also offers to assist appellant with his

    legal needs. However, DiNitto goes on, appellant must

    provide more detailed information concerning the status of

    his state cases and must be more specific concerning the

    research material appellant requires. Finally, DiNitto

    inquired whether appellant had contacted the Office of the

    Public Defender for assistance.

    Based on the above, we do not think that appellant

    has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the

    existence of an issue of material fact. Significantly, there

    is no indication that appellant ever responded to DiNitto's

    letter. The fact that appellant was "highly skeptical" that

    DiNitto could held him is, at best, an "arrant speculation"

    and cannot suffice to defeat summary judgment. See Kelly,
    ___ _____

    924 F.2d at 357. The letter requested reasonable information

    and, in the absence of any evidence that upon receiving such

    data from appellant, DiNitto would not have provided

    assistance, the letter represents adequate assistance under

    Bounds.
    ______

    B. Access to Prison Files
    ______________________

    Cases have uniformly held that a prisoner has no

    constitutional right of access to his or her prison files.



    -4-















    See, e.g., Slocum v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons and
    ___ ____ ______ _____________________________________

    Paroles, 678 F.2d 940, 942 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459
    _______ _____________

    U.S. 1043 (1982); Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197, 200 (4th
    _____ _____

    Cir.) (prisoner has no constitutional right of access to

    prison files), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 925 (1979); Cook v.
    ____________ ____

    Whiteside, 505 F.2d 32, 34 (5th Cir. 1974) ("failure of
    _________

    [parole] Board to allow [prisoner] to see his file does not

    assume the proportions of a deprivation of his rights under

    the Constitution or the laws of the United States").

    Appellant argues that in his case, this rule should be

    relaxed and that prison officials should be required to

    expunge the allegedly erroneous information.

    In support of his claim, appellant first asserts

    that if an inmate has been found guilty based on an

    "institutional report," good-time credits are deducted on a

    day-for-day basis for each day spent in lockup. His second

    argument is that he is scheduled to appear before the parole

    board in February 1994 and that the inaccurate information

    can be relied on by the board. Both of these occurrences, he

    concludes, implicate his constitutional rights to a

    significant degree. We think that these allegations are too

    uncertain to create a question of material fact concerning

    whether appellant is entitled to equitable relief. See Lopez
    ___ _____

    v. Garcia, 917 F.2d 63, 67 (1st Cir. 1990) (to obtain
    ______

    injunctive relief, plaintiff must show that there is a



    -5-















    likelihood that defendants will engage in unlawful conduct in

    the future).

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

    district court is affirmed.
    ________













































    -6-