Guzman-Rivera v. Metropolitan Det. ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-