Mercer v. Cumberland ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________







        No. 96-2356





                                   CRAIG J. MERCER,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              SHERIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Craig J. Mercer on brief pro se.
_______________

            William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel
_________________  _______________     _________________________

        & Libby on brief for appellee.
_______





                                 ____________________



                                   October 14, 1997

                                 ____________________

































                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff-appellant Craig  J. Mercer,
__________



            an Ohio  prisoner, appeals pro  se from the dismissal  of his
___  __



            complaint under 42 U.S.C.   1983 alleging that the Sheriff of



            Cumberland County (Maine) unlawfully detained Mercer and then



            unlawfully  transferred him  to Ohio authorities,  without an



            extradition  hearing,   to  face   final  parole   revocation



            proceedings.   See  28 U.S.C.     1915(e)(2)(B),  1915A.   We
___



            affirm.



                      Contrary to Mercer's  suggestion, we  do not  think



            that he stated  a claim for unlawful detention.   Pursuant to



            Maine's Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision, the



            sheriff  had the  authority  to  detain  Mercer  pending  the



            preliminary parole revocation hearing in Maine, and, since it



            appeared that  a retaking was  likely, for a  reasonable time



            thereafter.  Me. Rev.  Stat. Ann. tit. 34-A,   9861.   We are



            not  persuaded that the  length of  detention in  the instant



            case was unreasonable.        The  Uniform  Act  for  Out-of-



            State  Parolee Supervision  also permits  the  retaking of  a



            parolee subject to  the Act without "formalities"  other than



            "establishing the authority  of the officer and  the identity



            of the person to be retaken."  Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 34-A,



              9803.  Mercer makes  no argument that this Act incorporates



            the  procedural  protections  afforded  by  Maine's  Criminal



            Extradition Act, and the language of   9803 would suggest the



            contrary.    Under  the  circumstances,  and  passing without







                                         -2-



























            deciding  the question  whether  a  failure  to  comply  with



            extradition  procedures creates  a cause  of  action under



            1983, we find no error in the dismissal.



                      Affirmed.
________



























































































                                         -3-