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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-