Simmons v. Dickhaut
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
May 20, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
____________________
No. 91-2336
PAUL SIMMONS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PAUL G. DICKHAUT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Paul Simmons on brief pro se.
____________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Andrea J. Cabral,
__________________ __________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The appellant, Paul Simmons, appeals the
__________
grant of summary judgment in defendants' favor and the
dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983. We affirm.
In 1986, we reversed the district court's dismissal of
appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. Simmons
_______
v. Dickhaut, 804 F.2d 182 (1st Cir. 1986). We concluded that
________
an allegation of intentional violation of the right of access
to the courts states a cause of action under 1983 and that
appellant had alleged facts adequate to show more than simply
a procedural due process/deprivation of property claim, but
rather an intentional deprivation of his right of access to
the courts, protected as a substantive, constitutional right.
Id. at 185. While we directed that his complaint be
___
reinstated, we cautioned appellant that, on remand, he still
had to
fill[] in the particulars of his claim to
withstand a motion for summary judgment.
We intimate no opinion about the success
on the merits of Simmons's allegations.
Id.
___
On remand, appellant sought to "fill[] in the
particulars of his claim" by attempting to show the injury
which he claimed resulted from the defendants' intentional
deprivation of his right of access to the courts. Appellant
claimed that, had he had his legal material, (1) he would
have been able to substantiate his claim of an involuntary
-2-
guilty plea to a 1981 charge of armed robbery; (2) the state
court would have revoked his sentence on the guilty plea; and
(3) an indictment on a different charge, which later was
brought forward and pursuant to which appellant received an
additional 18-20 years, would have been dismissed.
The district court did not address any aspect of
appellant's alleged injury. Rather, it concluded that
appellant's claim suffered from a failure of proof on an
antecedent element of his claim and granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
As we have recited countless times, we review the grant
of summary judgment de novo. E.g., Rodriques v. Furtado, 950
____ _________ _______
F.2d 805, 808 (1st Cir. 1991). The question we face is
whether there is "any genuine factual issue[] that properly
can be resolved only by a finder of fact because [it] may
reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson
________
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). In order
___________________
to establish liability under 1983, appellant has to show an
intentional deprivation of his right of access to the courts
and that defendants' conduct was causally connected to that
deprivation. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553,
___________________ _________
559 (1st Cir. 1989).
The record essentially reduces to these competing
contentions.
Appellant claims: I had personal property,
including legal material, in my possession. I left it.
-3-
The defendants took possession of my property.
Despite prison regulations which require the
defendants to forward my property to me, I had
to ask three times for my legal material.
When I got my property back, I was told the
legal material was not there.
The defendants respond: Appellant lived in an
unlocked dormitory, where other inmates had
access to his personal property. He never
requested that any legal material be
separately inventoried or stored in a secure
location. The property officer, who took
possession of appellant's property after
appellant's escape, including a box of
miscellaneous books and papers, never removed
or tampered with anything in that box while it
was in his custody. And, to the best of the
property officer's knowledge and belief, no
one removed or tampered with anything in that
box from the time it was taken from
appellant's room until it was retrieved by the
person authorized by appellant to do so.
Appellant claims that he had legal material among his
possessions. In any event, defendants do not deny that he
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Simmons v. Dickhaut, (1st Cir. 1992).
Simmons v. Dickhaut (Simmons v. Dickhaut) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Paul Simmons v. Paul G. Dickhaut and Tony Somensini
804 F.2d 182 (First Circuit, 1986)
Suzanne Germany v. Carol Vance, Suzanne Germany v. Carol Vance
868 F.2d 9 (First Circuit, 1989)
Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc.
871 F.2d 179 (First Circuit, 1989)
Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Desiderio Cartagena and Domingo Alvarez, Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Pedro N. Soto and Edwin F. Gotay
882 F.2d 553 (First Circuit, 1989)
Robert Sowell v. George Vose
941 F.2d 32 (First Circuit, 1991)