[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-1737
MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
LARRY E. DUBOIS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Michael Kevin DuPont on brief pro se.
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
David J. Rentsch, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for
appellees.
March 26, 2002
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant, Michael Kevin DuPont,
appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment for
Appellees. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for
further proceedings.
On appeal, DuPont complains that the district court
failed to address all of the claims alleged in his complaint.
Upon careful review of the record, we agree with DuPont that a
number of his claims were not considered. The district court,
in a margin order, dismissed DuPont's action based
substantially on the Appellees' Memorandum in Support of
Summary Judgment. The Appellees' memorandum, however, failed
to address all of the claims asserted in DuPont's complaint.
Most significantly it ignored: (1) a due process claim based on
his asserted confinement in the Department Segregation Unit
("DSU") at MCI-Cedar Junction, (2) claims deriving from his
alleged treatment while in the DSU; (3) a claim that DuPont was
placed in the DSU in retaliation for his testimony in state
court; and (4) a claim that DuPont was denied access to the
courts as the result of various purported actions by the
Appellees.
Our preliminary review of the complaint, to which
Appellees have as yet filed no answer, suggests that the
undiscussed claims, on their face at least, state claims for
relief. The Appellees have presented no affidavits nor
-2-
documentary evidence to refute the allegations of fact and have
provided us with no legal basis for dismissal below of these
claims as they now stand. We are therefore unable to find
support in the record for the grant of summary judgment on the
allegations not yet addressed by the Appellees. Absent a more
developed record, the grant of summary judgment on these issues
was premature and must be vacated and remanded.
We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to all the
issues addressed in the Appellees' Memorandum in Support of
Summary Judgment. As to DuPont's other allegations the grant
of summary judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
-3-