McCabe v. Mach ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    October 8, 1993
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________


    No. 93-1341

    JOHN R. MCCABE,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    LEN MACH, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    John R. McCabe on brief pro se.
    ______________
    Mark P. Sutliff, Assistant Attorney General, on Motion to Join in
    _______________
    the Brief of appellee Richard Grelotti, for appellee, Leonard Mach.
    Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
    ____________________
    William D. Saltzman on brief for appellee, Richard Grelotti.
    ___________________


    ____________________


    ____________________



















    Per Curiam. John McCabe, a prisoner of the commonwealth
    __________

    of Massachusetts, appeals the district court grant of

    defendants' motion for summary judgment on his claims

    pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.1 McCabe alleges that, while

    incarcerated at the Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous

    Persons at Bridgewater, he was subject to mechanical

    restraints in violation of the eighth amendment prohibition

    of cruel and unusual punishment. He further alleges that he

    was deprived of his constitutional right of access to the

    courts because of restrictions placed upon his access to the

    law library.

    We believe that the district court's opinion adequately

    sets forth the background of this case, and that McCabe's

    serious assault on a guard amply justified the restraints and

    disposes of the eighth amendment claim.

    As for the denial of access to library facilities, the

    gravamen of McCabe's claim, as set forth in his brief on

    appeal, is that the restraints interfered with McCabe's

    ability to use the library. Because McCabe admits that he

    was not wholly denied access, he has no claim under section

    1983 without a showing of actual prejudice, such as the

    forfeit of a case for failure to meet filing deadlines. See
    ___





    ____________________

    1. The district court ordered plaintiff's claims
    "dismissed." However, since the court explicitly relied on
    defendant affidavits and on the record, we treat its decision
    as a summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
    ___















    Sowell v. Vose, 941 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1991). But McCabe
    ______ ____

    fails to make any such allegation of actual prejudice either

    in his complaint or in his brief on appeal.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district court on the issue

    of library access for lack of any claim of actual prejudice.

    We note that McCabe is now in another institution, and has

    conducted extensive litigation under new conditions, so that

    the library access problem of which he complains has

    apparently been resolved.

    Affirmed.
    ________

































    -3-







Document Info

Docket Number: 93-1341

Filed Date: 10/8/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015