Goodrich v. Rouleau

2003 DNH 048

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 20, 2003
• Docket: CV-02-314-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Goodrich v. Rouleau CV-02-314-JD 03/20/03 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David Goodrich

v. Civil No. 02-314-JD Opinion No. 2003 DNH 048 Angela Rouleau and Bruce Cattell

O R D E R

The plaintiff, David Goodrich, proceeding pro se, brings a

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Angela

Rouleau, the librarian at the Northern Correctional Facility, and

Bruce Cattell, Warden. Goodrich alleges that Rouleau and Cattell

interfered with his access to the prison library, retaliated

against him because of his complaint filed in this court, and

interfered with his legal mail. The defendants move to dismiss,

or in the alternative for summary judgment, asserting that

Goodrich has not exhausted administrative remedies as reguired by

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is not entitled to compensatory damages for

emotional or mental injury, and cannot maintain his claim for

injunctive relief because he has been paroled.

In considering a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court accepts the facts alleged

in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in

favor of the plaintiff. Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60, 63 (1st Cir. 2002). "Ordinarily, a court may not

consider any documents that are outside of the complaint, or not

expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted

into one for summary judgment." Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St.

Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co . , 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2001). An

exception exists "for documents the authenticity of which are not

disputed by the parties; for official public records; for

documents central to plaintiffs' claim; or for documents

sufficiently referred to in the complaint." Watterson v. Page,

987 F .2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993).

Goodrich appended some of the grievance slips to his

original complaint and does not contest the authenticity of the

others submitted by the defendants. The complaint has been

amended twice, and the current version of the complaint was filed

on October 7, 2002.1 The grievance procedure, PPD 1.16,

submitted by the defendants does not apply to the time in

guestion and is, therefore, irrelevant. There is no dispute as

to the authenticity of the memo from "Ms. Rouleau" to "All

Inmates and Staff," which is dated March 29, 2002. Therefore,

the memo and grievance forms are considered without converting

the motion to one for summary judgment.

1The defendants cite to the wrong complaint.

2 Discussion

Goodrich's claims arise from his efforts to be allowed

extended time in the prison law library beginning in April of

2002. Goodrich alleges that he was given permission by the

inmate attorney, Walter Pazden, to use the law library for an

additional four hours, for a total of eight hours each week. He

states that after a few weeks. Rouleau denied him access for the

additional four hours. He states that because of the limited

time allowed, he had to file motions to extend court deadlines,

and he was not able to adeguately prepare his materials.

He also states that he filed grievances and complaints about

the problems with access to the library. He alleges that Rouleau

retaliated against him for filing his complaints by making false

reports and allegations against him to incur disciplinary action

against him. He also alleges that the prison did not mail a

large manila envelope of his legal materials to the court. For

relief, Goodrich seeks an order to prevent Rouleau and Catrell

from interfering with his access to the library, an order that he

is indigent to excuse him from court costs, compensatory damages

for unspecified injuries due to the "willful deprivations,

willful intent and indifferences" caused by the defendants, and

punitive damages.

3 A. Exhaustion

As part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA" ) ,

Congress imposed an exhaustion reguirement in § 1983 actions

brought by prisoners: "'No action shall be brought with respect

to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as

are available are exhausted.'" Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

524 (2002) (guoting 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). Exhaustion is an

affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of

proving a failure to exhaust. Casanova v. Dubois, 304 F.3d 75,

78 n.3 (1st Cir. 2002).

Taking the record and allegations as true and in the light

most favorable to Goodrich, he has sufficiently exhausted the

prison's administrative remedies with respect to his access to

the library claim. The defendants state without contradiction in

the record or the pleadings that Goodrich never filed any

grievance or complaint with respect to his claims of retaliation

and interference with his mail. Therefore, those claims are not

exhausted and are barred by § 1997e(a).

4 B. Limitation on Damages

"No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner

confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for

mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a

prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

Although § 1997e(e) bars an award of damages for mental or

emotional injury in the absence of a physical injury, it does not

bar other forms of relief. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Detella, 319

F .3d 936, 939-40 (7th Cir. 2003).

Since Goodrich has not alleged a physical injury, he is

barred from claiming or recovering damages for mental or

emotional injury.

C. Injunctive Relief

The defendants contend that because Goodrich was paroled in

mid-December, his reguest for injunctive relief is moot. The

court agrees. See, e.g., McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213,

1214-16 (10th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519

(9th Cir. 1991); Shaheed-Muhammad v. Dipaolo, 138 F. Supp. 2d 99,

106 (D. Mass. 2001). Therefore, Goodrich's claims for injunctive

relief are dismissed as moot.

5 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss

(document no. 40) is granted as to Goodrich's claims of

retaliation and interference with mail, any claim for damages

based on mental or emotional injury, and for injunctive relief.

The motion is denied as to Goodrich's claim that the defendants

interfered with his right to access the courts by failing to give

him extended time in the law library and for relief related to

that claim other than damages for mental or emotional injury or

injunctive relief.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

March 20, 2003

cc: David Goodrich, pro se Mary E. Schwarzer, Esguire