USCA1 Opinion
October 6, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2231
WESTON J. STOW,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Weston J. Stow on brief pro se.
______________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and William C. McCallum,
__________________ _____________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Asserting that "effective meaningful
__________
legal research often requires browsing through as many as
thirty different lawbooks a day," and having been unable to
proceed at such a pace (at least when the volumes plaintiff
wished to consult were in the main library rather than in the
satellite library), plaintiff filed the present action. We
conclude that plaintiff's action was properly dismissed under
28 U.S.C. 1915(d).
The deficiencies plaintiff described in the
satellite library plus the limitation to two photocopy cases
per request from the main library may slow the pace of legal
research, but do not rise to the level of an unconstitutional
denial of access to the courts. Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d
________ ______
589, 606 (7th Cir. 1986); Campbell v. Miller, 787 F.2d 217,
________ ______
225-30 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1019 (1986)
_____________
(prisoner limited to two books at a time, for which he may
wait twenty-four hours to one week to obtain). Plaintiff has
misjudged the standard by which the constitutional adequacy
of the legal resources are measured. The deficiencies
plaintiff identified may prevent plaintiff from preparing the
honed brief of a lawyer, but such is not required from a pro
se, whose filings are liberally construed. The deficiencies
complained of would not prevent plaintiff from adequately
communicating with the courts, and plaintiff's conclusory
assertion that he lost a case because of the deficiencies
adds nothing. Nor was the state required to provide
plaintiff with assistance from someone trained in the law.
Cepulonis v. Fair, 732 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1984) (inmate
_________ ____
entitled to adequate law library or assistance from persons
trained in the law, not both).
Plaintiff also asks this court to order the warden
of the Massachusetts prison where plaintiff is currently
housed to pay the postage for plaintiff's legal mail. We
deny plaintiff's motion. The Massachusetts warden is not a
party to this action. Furthermore, while plaintiff claims
that he has no funds in his prison account, he has not stated
that the warden has refused to provide postage for
appellant's legal mail. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,
___ ______ _____
824-25 (1977) ("It is indisputable that indigent inmates must
be provided at state expense with paper and pen to draft
legal documents and with stamps to mail them"). In any
event, any challenge to the prison's mailing practices should
be brought in the district court.
We have considered all of plaintiff's allegations
and arguments and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
________
-3-