USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1222
ERVIN TRIPLETT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH LEHMAN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Ervin Triplett on brief pro se. ______________
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Diane Sleek and Peter J. ________________ ____________ ________
Brann, Assistant Attorney Generals, on brief for appellees. _____
____________________
August 21, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Ervin Triplett appeals a __________ ___ __
district court order that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983
complaint for injunctive relief from the alleged denial of
his right of access to the courts. That complaint alleged
that the defendant employees of the Maine Department of
Corrections had violated that right by denying or ignoring
plaintiff's requests for access to the prison law library at
MCI-Warren.1 1
As it is undisputed that plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated at MCI-Warren, we agree that the district court
properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint as moot. See United ___ ______
States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 (1950); Gomes v. ______ ___________ _____
Rhode Island Interscholastic League, 604 F.2d 733, 736 (1st ____________________________________
Cir. 1979); Keleghan v. Industrial Trust Co., 211 F.2d 134, ________ _____________________
135 (per curiam). We decline to address plaintiff's claim
that the defendants transferred him out of MCI-Warren in
retaliation for filing this lawsuit. As plaintiff never
clearly alleged that he was seeking damages for a retaliatory
transfer and further failed to serve the defendants with
notice of this claim, it is not properly before us.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ________
____________________
1Although we do not reach the issue in the present appeal, 1
we note that the plaintiff's complaint patently fails to
state a viable claim under the Supreme Court's recent
decision in Lewis v. Casey, 64 U.S.L.W. 4587, 4589 (U.S. June _____ _____
24, 1996)(holding that prisoner must show actual injury to
establish violation of right of access to the courts).
-2-