Dupont v. DuBois
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dupont v. DuBois. Read the opinion of the Court — 99 F.3d 1128 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1459
MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
LARRY E. DUBOIS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, 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
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, 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. __________
____________________
November 6, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. Michael Kevin DuPont appeals from the __________
district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief.1 1
We affirm, without prejudice to his right to seek certain
relief anew in the district court, as is explained below.
A. Background __________
DuPont is incarcerated at MCI-Cedar Junction in
Massachusetts. In 1992, he filed a pro se civil rights ___ __
action against various Department of Corrections personnel
and others, seeking damages and injunctive relief under 42
U.S.C. 1983. Among other things, he alleged that
defendants had violated his rights by using excessive force
against him, seizing his legal materials, denying him medical
care, and threatening to confine him in a disciplinary unit.
At the time he filed his complaint, DuPont was in the
Departmental Segregation Unit (DSU), but he was later placed
in the Departmental Disciplinary Unit (DDU), where he
remains.
In this appeal, DuPont challenges the district
court's denial of his request for an injunction ordering
compliance with certain stipulations, agreements, or orders
in the following cases: Cepulonis v. Fair, D. Mass., No. _________ ____
78-3233-Z; Stone v. Boone, D. Mass., No. 73-1083-T; Alston v. _____ _____ ______
____________________
1The court accepted a magistrate's report recommending 1
denial of some of his requests for relief in an order dated
August 3, 1995, and summarily denied other requests in an
order dated March 13, 1996. DuPont appeals from those two
orders.
-2-
Fair, D. Mass., No. 77-3519-G; Hoffer v. Fair, S.J.C. No. 85- ____ ______ ____
71; and DuPont v. Hall, Norfolk Super. Ct. No. 87-1399. He ______ ____
also objects to the court's denial of his requests for
injunctions forbidding the use of chemical agents or
excessive force against him, forbidding his placement in a
strip cell, directing the return of postage stamps taken from
his incoming mail and the return of certain legal materials,
and directing his release from the DDU.
B. Discussion __________
If the district court has made no clear error of
law or fact in its ruling on a preliminary injunction motion,
we will not disturb its conclusion absent manifest abuse of
discretion. See Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F.2d 888, 902 ___ _____ ________________
(1st Cir. 1993). For the reasons outlined below, we find
that the district court did not overstep its bounds in
denying the requested relief.
Consent Decree Violations. In part, DuPont seeks __________________________
orders enforcing federal or state court consent decrees, but
such relief is unavailable in an individual action under 42
U.S.C. 1983. See Martel v. Fridovich, 14 F.3d 1, 3 n.4 ___ ______ _________
(1st Cir. 1993).2 2
____________________
2On appeal, DuPont presents a new claim that his placement 2
in the DDU breached a settlement agreement in DuPont v. Fair, ______ ____
Plymouth Super. Ct. No. 89-0105-B, but that claim would also
be barred under Martel. ______
-3-
State Law Violations. DuPont also asserts various ____________________
state law violations, e.g., that defendants have not properly
promulgated certain DDU rules, did not medically screen him
before placing him in the DDU, and have not provided certain
law library access, all in violation of state statutes or
regulations. But he does not explain how defendants thereby
violated federal law, and this court does not have the power
to direct state officials to comply with state law. See ___
Quintero de Quintero v. Aponte-Roque, 974 F.2d 226, 230 (1st _____________________ ____________
Cir. 1992) (citing Pennhurst State Sch.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dupont v. DuBois, (1st Cir. 1996).
Dupont v. DuBois (Dupont v. DuBois) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Procunier v. Martinez
416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Turner v. Safley
482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Thornburgh v. Abbott
490 U.S. 401 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Martel v. Fridovich
14 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1993)
Edward Eugene Little v. Larry Norris, Warden, Tucker Maximum Security Unit A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
787 F.2d 1241 (Eighth Circuit, 1986)
Dinhora Quintero De Quintero v. Awilda Aponte-Roque
974 F.2d 226 (First Circuit, 1992)
Amy Cohen v. Brown University
991 F.2d 888 (First Circuit, 1993)
Air Line Pilots Association v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc.
26 F.3d 220 (First Circuit, 1994)
Darryl Williams v. Paul Delo Bill Hartley Raphael Coad Greg Dunn Unknown Wells, Officer Norma Lavrrar Paul Stuart, Officer
49 F.3d 442 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
Savko v. Rollins
749 F. Supp. 1403 (D. Maryland, 1990)