Heureux v. Ashton
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
February 9, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2194
RONALD L'HEUREUX,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
LEO ASHTON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Ronald L'Heureux on brief pro se. ________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant Ronald L'Heureux, an inmate __________
at the Adult Correctional Institution in Rhode Island, filed
a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in Rhode Island's federal district
court, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The _________________
complaint, besides naming the parties and citing the
jurisdictional bases of the action, contains only conclusory
references to the nature of appellant's claims. It
essentially alleges that (1) defendants (various correctional
officials) manufactured disciplinary proceedings against
appellant, (2) appellant spent 120 days in lock-up, (3)
appellant was denied reclassification, and (4) at least some
of these actions were taken for the purpose of discrimination
and retaliation.
The district court denied the request to proceed in __
forma pauperis, stating on the back of the application that _______________
"the allegations are insufficient to set forth a federal
cause of action." The next day, judgment was entered for the
defendants. Thus, the only reason given for dismissing the
complaint is the above-quoted language. We construe this as
a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). Appellant then filed
a motion for relief from judgment and to amend the complaint,
and a motion to reconsider the denial of in forma pauperis _________________
status. The amended complaint added allegations concerning
the events upon which appellant based the action. The
district court denied these motions. This appeal ensued and
-2-
appellant now requests permission to proceed in forma _________
pauperis on appeal. ________
Despite its brevity, the complaint should not have
been dismissed under 1915(d) without first giving appellant
notice of the deficiency and an opportunity to amend. See ___
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329-30 (1989) (emphasizing _______ ________
the importance of providing opportunities for responsive
pleadings to indigent litigants commensurate to the
opportunities accorded similarly situated paying litigants);
Street v. Fair, 918 F.2d 269, 273 (1st Cir. 1990) (per ______ ____
curiam) (where the complaint's deficiency conceivably could
be cured by amendment, an indigent plaintiff must be given a
chance to supplement his or her allegations before any
dismissal on the merits). Particularly in view of the
allegations in the amended complaint, we cannot say that
appellant will be unable to state a cognizable claim.
In the amended complaint, appellant specifically
alleges that prison officials retaliated against him for
acting as a jail-house lawyer. This court and others have
recognized such claims. See, e.g., McDonald v. Hall, 610 ___ ____ ________ ____
F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979) (inmate who asserted that as a
result of his activities as a jail-house lawyer on behalf of
himself and others, he was transferred to another prison
stated a claim even though the allegations were conclusory);
Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir. 1993) _____ _______
-3-
(government official may not retaliate by the use of
segregation against an inmate who engages in the
constitutionally protected conduct of assisting others as a
jail-house lawyer); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 _____ ______
(9th Cir. 1985) (the assertion that an inmate's transfer was
in retaliation for his work as a jail-house lawyer stated a
claim for violation of the First Amendment where the
retaliatory act did not advance legitimate institutional
goals). Although the chronology still is vague so that it is
not clear whether appellant's activities triggered the
disciplinary proceedings, such an omission goes to the
failure to state a claim, not frivolousness. See Leonardo v. ___ ________
Moran, 611 F.2d 397, 398 (1st Cir. 1979) (plaintiff failed to _____
state a 1983 claim for retaliation based on the conclusory
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Heureux v. Ashton, (1st Cir. 1996).
Heureux v. Ashton (Heureux v. Ashton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bruce Leonardo v. John Moran
611 F.2d 397 (First Circuit, 1979)
William R. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corporation
851 F.2d 513 (First Circuit, 1988)
R.A. Street v. Michael v. Fair
918 F.2d 269 (First Circuit, 1990)
Paul D. Gibbs v. Robert J. Hopkins Pat Leavenworth
10 F.3d 373 (Sixth Circuit, 1993)
Rizzo v. Dawson
778 F.2d 527 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)